G.N.Das, J. - (1.) This Rule was obtained against an order of Mr. S. K. Roy learned Judge of the Presidency Court of Small Causes, Sixth Bench, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under Order 21, Rule 100, Section 144, Civil P. C. and Section 13(2), Rent Control Act, 1950. The admitted facts are that the opposite party 2 was a tenant under the opposite party 1. The petitioner is a subtenant under opposite party 2 in respect of a portion of the premises held as tenant by the opposite party 2 under opposite party 1.
(2.) On 10-1-1951 the opposite party 1 obtained a decree in ejectment against opposite party 2 on the ground of default in payment of rent after service of a notice to quit. In execution of that decree the opposite party 1 wanted to eject the petitioner from the disputed property but was resisted by the petitioner in taking possession. On the next date the opposite party 1 dispossessed the petitioner with police help. Thereafter the present application was filed by the petitioner for restoration of possession under Order 21. Rule 100, Section 144, Civil P. C. and Section 13(2), Rent Control Act, 1950:, before the learned Judge of the sixth Bench. An objection was raised by the opposite party 1 that the application was not maintainable. The learned Judge without deciding the merits of the application was of the opinion that the application as laid was not maintainable and dismissed the same. It is against this order that the petitioner has moved this Court in revision.
(3.) Mr. Dutta Roy, learned Advocate who has appeared in support of the petition, has submitted that the application which was filed by the petitioner in the Court below was really an application under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P.C. Mr. Dutta Roy has contended that he was not the judgment-debtor and was not in possession on account of the judgment-debtor and as such he was entitled to be restored to possession under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 100.;