Renupada Mukherjee, J. - (1.) This Rule is directed against an order passed by a Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, disallowing an application made by the judgment-debtor Petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) In order to appreciate the real point involved in this Rule it is necessary to state the following facts: The decree-holders opposite parties brought an ejectment suit against the Petitioner tenant in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, for ejecting him from a room and kitchen on the second floor of premises No. 38, Balaram Majumder Street, bearing a rental of Rs. 22 per month. The tenant put up a defence against ejectment, and during the pendency of the suit in the trial court the landlords opposite parties made an application under Section 14(4) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, for an order upon the Petitioner to deposit in court all arrears of rent and also to pay future rent month by month. On December 7, 1955, the opposite parties made an application to the court for striking out the written statement of the Petitioner on the ground that the rent for Kartick, 1362 B.S., was not deposited in court in time. This application was allowed on January 19, 1956, and the written statement of the Petitioner was struck out and the suit for ejectment was eventually decreed on March 22, 1956. The life of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, expired on March 31, 1956 and the new Act of 1956 came into operation on that date. After the expiry of the previous Act of 1950 under the provisions of which this decree had been passed, the landlords opposite parties started execution proceedings on May 31, 1956. This application for execution was objected to by the Petitioner-judgment-Debtor on the ground that with the repeal of the old Act of 1950 the court which had passed the decree had ceased to exist and it also lost its jurisdiction and there was no successor court competent to execute the decree. Some other objections were also taken on behalf of the judgment-Debtor but I do not mention them here because, in my opinion, they are not tenable on the face of them.
(3.) Mr. Guha appearing on behalf of the judgment Debtor-Petitioner raised a contention which is a very subtle and ingenious one. He contended that a Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, is not ordinarily empowered to try an ejectment suit as a Civil Court under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887. He submitted that Section 16 read with Schedule B of the Rent Control Act of 1950 specifically empowered a Judge of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes to try an ejectment suit as a Civil Court where the premises are situate on a land wholly within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court and when the rent payable for one month does not exceed Rs. 500, Section 16 of the Rent Control Act of 1950 runs in the following terms: Notwithstanding anything Contained in any other law a suit by a landlord against a tenant in which recovery of possession of any premises to which this Act applies is claimed shall lie to the courts, as set out in Schedule B, and no other court shall be competent to entertain or try such suit.;