RAJADHYAKSHA, J. - This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Small Cause Court, Bombay, which has been referred to a Division Bench by Shah, J. The applicant in this case was a trustee of the late Rao Bahadur Seth Karamaey Damji Sanatorium which is situated near the Wilson College, Chowpatty. The sanatorium has certain rooms which are lat out for a period of one month at a time, and according to the rules of the trust no occupant of the room may remain on the premises for more than three months. The opponent Tulsidas applied for one of the rooms on the ground of illness and produced a medical certificate in support of his application. He was thereupon assigned Room No. 26 for one month from 11th July 1948. The period of occupancy was extended first up to 10th September and then up to 10th October 1948. As the opponent failed to vacate the premises on 10th October inspite of his under-taking and the conditions for the use of the sanatorium, a notice was served upon him by the trustees requiring him to vacate. In defiance of this notice, the opponent continued to remain in occupation, and thereupon the trustees filed an application in the Small Cause Court, being Application No. 11080 of 1948, under S. 41, Small Cause Courts Act, stating that the opponent was in occupation purely by leave and license, and that the licence had been revoked both by the undertaking he had given and by the notices served upon him. It appears that when the application came on for hearing on 13th November, the opponents pleader gave an undertaking that Tulsidas would vacate the premises or come to a settlement with the trustees within on month thereafter. The proceedings were accordingly adjourned to 23rd December 1948, when an adjournment was again asked for and granted on the plea that the opponent would vacate the room before 18th January 1949, or, in the alternative, would submit to a decree to vacate the room on or before 28th February 1943. When the matter came on for hearing on 18th February 1949, an order was passed by the learned Judge of the Small-Cause Court directing the opponent to restore-possession of the room to the trustees on or before 13th May 1949. Two days before the period was to expire, i.e., on 16th May 1919, the opponent filed an application under S. 47, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, asking that the proceedings for delivery of possession be stayed as he intended to file a suit as contemplated by that section. Accordingly on 6th June 1949, the order for execution was stayed, and 15 days time was granted for filing the suit. On 21st June, time for filing the suit was extended, and notice of the application asking for a stay of the proceedings was served upon the trustees. It was contended on behalf of the trustees that the Court had no jurisdiction to stay the proceedings after an order had been passed under S. 43, and in support of this contention the judgment of Shah, J. in Gopal Anant v. Anandrao, 51 Bom LR 812 : (AIR (37) 1950 Bom 120) was produced. In that judgment Shah, J. had expressed grave doubts as to whether after an order had been passed by the Court of Small Causes directing delivery of possession, any suit seeking an injunction for restraining execution of the order of the Small Cause Court could be, and whether by reason of the intended filing of the suit, a stay of the proceedings could be asked for under S. 47. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court, however, felt himself bound by a decision of Bavdekar, J. in a civil revision application filed against the learned Judges own judgment in an earlier case. That was in Bai Parvatilal v. Kesurdas, CSA No. 827 of 1918, D/- 5th April 1949 by Bavdekar, J. In that judgment Bavdekar, J. expressed his agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in Krishna Iyer v. Subramania Iyer, AIR (10) 1923 Mad 323 : (72 IC 154) that an application under S. 47 for a stay of proceedings could be made even after an order had been passed