Narayan Chandra Sil, J. - (1.) This is to consider a revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arising out of the order impugned dated 29th April, 2004 passed by Sri Devi Prasad Dey, the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, 24 - Parganas Barast in connection with Civil Revision No. 102 of 2003 which again arose out of the order No. 70 dated 5th July, 2003 passed by S.K. Sharma, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Basirhat in connection with Title Suit No. 111 of 1990 in disposing of the application under Sections 17(2) and 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.
(2.) At the very outset of the hearing the learned Counsel for the opposite party has challenged the maintainability of the application. Thus, Mr. Ganesh Srivastava, the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is virtually a second revision which is 44 not maintainable in terms of provisions of Section 115A (3), (4) of the Civil Procedure Code as amended by West Bengal Act 15 of 1988 which came into force with effect from 1.2.1989. Mr. Hari Narayan Mukherjee, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff/landlord submits that both the learned Courts below had relied on the notebook of the plaintiff to determine the quantum of rent. Mr. Mukherjee has also drawn my attention to the certified copy of the said notebook.
(3.) I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsels for both the parties. It appears from the State of affairs of the record that initially the learned trial Court while disposing of a petition under Section 17(2) and 17(2A) of the W.B.P.T. Act passed the order in favour of the plaintiff/landlord. Against the order a revisional application was moved before the District Court and the order of the trial Court was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court. Thereafter the learned trial Court on hearing the parties disposed of the petition determining the quantum of rent at Rs. 180/- per month. Against that order of the learned trial Court again a revisional application was moved (vide Civil Revisional Application No. 102 of 2003) and in disposing of that application the learned Additional District Judge passed the order impugned dated 29th April, 2004 having affirmed the order of the learned trial Court and against the order the plaintiff petitioner has preferred this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court. Mr. Mukherejee has frankly admitted that the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is virtually a revisional application. Thus, by all sense, the present application for consideration before this Court is a second revisional application, first having been filed before the learned District Judge and disposed of there by the order impugned. Admittedly, the Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 115A of the Civil Procedure Code came into force with effect from 1.2.1989. Also admittedly, the first revisional application and the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution both were filed after Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 115A of the Code came into force. Section 115A of the Code deals with the power of District Court as regards the revisional and it is clearly stated there that a District Court may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code. But, in fact Section 115 of the Code does not deal with the power of the District Court in revision only but the Subs-sections (3) and (4) of that Section have circumscribed the power of the High Court indirectly. Those Sub-sections (3) and (4) read as under:- "(3) Where any proceeding for revision is commenced before the District Court, the decision of the District Court on such proceeding shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court. (4) If any application for revision has been made by any party either to the High Court under Section 115 or the District Court under this Section, no further application by the same party shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court." Here lies the legal gimmick of Article 227 of the Constitution. In view of the provisions of the above quoted two Sub-sections it is clear a second revision under Section 115 of the Code is a bar. But in any case those two Sub-sections of Section 115A of the Code cannot oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.;