SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1953 Supreme(Cal) 182

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
G. N. Das
MOHAMMAD HOSSAIN - Appellant
Versus
SAHADAT KHAN - Respondent
Civil Rule 2160  Of  1952
Decided On : AUGUST 26, 1953

Advocates Appeared:
Benoyendra Prasad Bagchi, Sudhansu Kumar Sen

An appeal lies against an order made by a Judge, 2nd Bench, even though the special or local Act i. e. the Rent Control Act 1950 is silent.

Headnote:

RENT CONTROL ACT - APPEAL - ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 9, RULE 13, CIVIL P. C. - APPEALABILITY - WEST BENGAL PREMISES RENT CONTROL (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1950 (WEST BENGAL ACT XVII OF 1950), SECS. 16, 32(6) - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (ACT V OF 1908), SECS. 4, 104(1)(I), ORDER 9, RULE 13, ORDER 43, RULE 1(D).

Fact of the Case:

The defendant-petitioner filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C. for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that no notice or summons of the suit was served on him. The application was dismissed by the Judge, 2nd Bench. The defendant-petitioner filed an appeal before a Special Bench constituted in accordance with Section 32(6)(ii), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that no appeal lay from the order of the Judge, 2nd Bench.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that an appeal lay from the order of the Judge, 2nd Bench to the Special Bench. The Court held that the Code of Civil Procedure applies to suits filed under Section 16 of the Rent Control Act, 1950. The Court held that Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code is applicable, and an order rejecting an application under Order 9, Rule 13 is appealable under Section 104(1)(i) read with Order 43, Rule 1, Clause (d) of the Code.

Issues: Whether an appeal lay from the order of the Judge, 2nd Bench to the Special Bench.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Rent Control Act 1950 is silent on the question whether an appeal lies against an order made in a suit under Section 16 or in proceedings in execution of a decree made in such a suit. In such a case, the principles enunciated in 'Adaikappa's case' cited already clearly apply. A legal right as between the plaintiff opposite party and the defendant petitioner was in dispute. The Judge, 2nd Bench who had to decide the dispute functioned as a Civil Court. Accordingly the order made by him was appealable in accordance with the ordinary rules of procedure i. e. the Code of Civil Procedure. An appeal therefore lay against an order made by the Judge, 2nd Bench, even though the special or local Act i. e. the Rent Control Act 1950 was silent.

Final Decision: The Court set aside the order of the Special Bench and remitted the matter to a Special Bench as contemplated by Section 32(6)(ii) of the Rent Control Act 1950 for decision of the appeal according to law.

G. N. DAS, J.

( 1 ) THIS rule was obtained by the defendant petitioner and is directed against an order dated 17-6-1952 passed by Shri S. C. Sen Gupta, Chief Judge and Shri S. K. Roy, Judge 6th Bench. Court of Small Causes, Calcutta dismissing an appeal from an order dated 3-5-1952 passed by Sri P. M. Lahiri, Judge, 2nd Bench.

( 2 ) THE facts are as follows: in 1951, the plaintiff opposite party instituted a suit for ejectment of the defendant petitioner on the ground that he reasonably required the portion of the premises No. 3 Ripon Lane, Calcutta held by the defendant petitioner as his tenant at a rent of Rs. 60 per month, for his own use and occupation. The suit was valued at Rs. 720/- only. The suit was decreed ex parte on 14-1-1952 and in execution of the said decree the plaintiff opposite party took possession. The defendant petitioner thereupon filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C. for setting aside the ex 'parte decree on the ground that no notice or summons of the suit was served on him and that he came to Know of the suit for the first time when, the plaintiff opposite party took possession. The application was dismissed on 3-5-1952 by Shri p. M. . Lahiri Judge 2nd Bench.

( 3 ) AGAINST this order the defendant petitioner filed an appeal before a Special Bench constituted in accordance with Section 32 (6) (ii), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 hereinafter called the Rent Control Act 1950. The appeal was heard by a Special Bench consisting of the Chief Judge and the Judge 6th Bench and was dismissed on 17-6-1952. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that no appeal lay from the order of the Judge, 2nd Bench, The Special Bench did not record any reasons for the view taken by it. Against the order of the Special Bench the defendant petitioner moved this Court in revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. and obtained the present rule.

( 4 ) MR. Sen, learned Advocate for the defendant petitioner has contended that an appeal lay from the order of the Judge 2nd Bench to the Special Bench. Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate for the plaintiff opposite party, has, on the other hand urged that the Rent Control Act 1950 provides for an appeal merely from a decree in a suit for ejectment and-necessarily excludes a right of appeal from an order passed in such a suit.

( 5 ) THE Rent Control Act 1950 has provided for a special forum for the trial of suite for recovery of possession of premises to which the Act relates, Section 16 of the Act provides that such a suit for ejectment "shall lie to the Courts as set out in Sen. B". Schedule B (1) (ii) provides that where the disputed premises are situate within the ordinary original jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court and the rent thereof for one month is less than Rs. 500/-, the Chief Judge of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes "shall entertain and try the suit as a Court of the District Judge under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887". The rule is subject to a proviso that the Chief Judge-"shall be entitled to transfer the suit for trial to any other Judge of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes, who shall try it as a Court of the Subordinate Judge under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887. " in pursuance of the above rule the instant suit for ejectment was filed before the Chief Judge and on transfer, was heard by the Judge, 2nd Bench. The suit was accordingly heard and disposed of by the latter as a Subordinate Judge.

( 6 ) THE question is whether the procedure before the Judge, 2nd Bench was governed by the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 7 ) THE Rent Control Act, 1950, does net specifically make the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to a suit under Section 16 of the Act. The preamble and Section 1, Civil P. C. make the Code applicable to all proceedings before a Court of Civil Judicature. Section 16 and Schedule B of the Rent Control Act 1950 specifically provide that the Chief Judge or any other Judge o









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top