The proviso to Section 14 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, which limits the court's power to grant relief against ejectment, does not apply to cases where the court exercises powers under Section 14 under the provisions of Section 18 (5) of the Act.

( 1 ) THE decision of this appeal by the defendant in an action for ejectment depends on the decision of a question of law whether in exercising powers under Section 14, West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act, under the provisions of Section 18 (5) of that Act, the Court has to take notice of the proviso to Section 14 (3 ). Another question that was raised at first by the learned Advocate for the appellant, namely, that while the alleged ipso facto determination of the tenancy on which the action was based was stated to have taken place on 15-2-1948, the tenancy could not have been determined on that date as there had not been up to that date default of rents for three months accrued due after the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948, came into operation, was given up when it was pointed out that the plaint did also aver defaults for other periods of three months accrued due after 1-12-1948, which defaults would undoubtedly result in ipso facto determination of the tenancy.

( 2 ) THE facts are not disputed. The appellant and another were the monthly tenants of the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 28-2-0 according to English calendar month. They had made default in payment of rent for the period from October 1947, to July, 1949, when the suit was instituted on 22-8-1949. When the trial Court delivered judgment on 22-6-1950, they were in arrears for the entire period from October 1947, to May 1950, the amount in arrears on that date being thus Rs. 900.

( 3 ) ON the date of the institution of the suit, the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948, was in force. The suit was pending for trial on the date when the 1950 Act came into force. Section 18 (5) of the Act, as it then stood and as it stood at the date when the trial Court delivered judgment, was in these words :"if at the date when this Act comes into force, a suit for ejectment of a tenant is pending, whether in trial Court or in Court of first or second appeal in which no dacree for ejectment would be passed except on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Bent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1j48, the Court shall exercise the powers of granting relief against ejectment given by Section 14 of this Act following the provisions and procedure of that section as far as may be necessary, and for the said purpose shall make such order for amendment of pleadings, production of evidence, remand, payment of costs as may be necessary or just. "

( 4 ) THE trial Court held that it was bound to exercise powers under Section 14 of the 1950 Act and passed the following order :"that the suit be decreed with costs on contest against defendant 2 and ex parte against defendant 1 subject to the condition of payment of the amount hereinafter mentioned. Defendants to vacate the disputed room within 30 days from date. In default plaintiffs shall be entitled to recover has possession of the same in execution of the decree. Plaintiffs shall recover Rs. 493-3-0 as arrears of rent from the defendants. Plaintiffs shall further recover damages from the defendant Rs. 28-2-0 per month on and from 16-2-1949 till the date of recovery of possession of the disputed room on payment of additional court-fees on calculation after subsequent application. But if the defendants deposit Rs. 900 as arrears of rent from October, 1947, till May, 1950 and Rs. 130-5- 0 as interest on such arrears and Rs. 123-l0-0 as costs of this suit making an aggregate sum of Rs. 1153-15-0 within 15 days from date excluding this date, then the suit shall stand dismissed in full satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim. "by the time the appeal came up for hearing Act 62 of 1950 had been passed and Section 18 (5) of the Act had been amended by substituting the words; "on the ground that the interest of the tenant in such premises has been ipso facto determined under the provisions of Sub-sect