The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the Court to gather the intention of the legislature from the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute, and the impossibility of applying a statutory provision to the facts of the case.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from an order of Banerjee J. dated December 20, 1948, dismissing an application under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, XXXVIII [38] of 1948. The application was made by the appellants for an order that the decree in a suit for ejectment and rent made against them at the instance of the respondent and dated August 14, 1947, and all orders for execution made thereunder should be rescinded or varied on such terms and conditions as the Court might seem fit. There was also a prayer for an injunction restraining the respondent, his servants or agents from executing the said decree for possession.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the litigation can be shortly stated as follows. The plaintiff-respondent was the owner of premises known as No. 10, Canning Street in the city of Calcutta. The petitioners, the Federation Bank of India, Ltd. , were the tenants under the plaintiff in respect of part of the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 360. The bank were in arrear with the payment of rent and in the early part of the year 1946 the bank made an application to this Court under the Indian Companies Act for a moratorium. The application was, however, refused. On July 31, 1946, the plaintiff-respondent served a notice to quit upon the bank, but the bank did not vacate the premises after the expiry of the notice. On September 10, 1946, this Court made an order winding up the bank and the Official Liquidator was appointed liquidator of the company. Subsequently, a scheme was sanctioned under the Indian Companies Act and by that scheme the bank was allowed to pay its debts by certain instalments. As the bank was a defaulter in the payment of rent an application was made by the plaintiff-respondent to the Rent Controller for leave to file a suit for ejectment, as it was necessary under an Ordinance then in force that such leave should be obtained before a suit could be filed. The Rent Controller gave leave to the plaintiff-respondent to bring a suit if the arrears from January 1946 were not paid up in a month's time. The arrears were not paid and the leave became effective. The bank appealed from the order of the Rent Controller, hut that appeal was dismissed and on July 25, 1947, a suit for possession and for Rs. 2880 as arrears of rent and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 360 a month was filed in this Court. It will be seen that non-payment of rent was made a ground for eviction. The writ of summons was duly served on the bank, but no appearance was entered. The result was that the suit was decreed ex parte on August 14, 1947. The bank then made an application under Order 9, Rule 13 to have the ex parte decree set aside. This application was dismissed and an appeal was preferred. The Court of Appeal granted a stay on certain conditions, one being that the petitioner deposited in Court a sum of Rs. 8000 as a condition for the stay. The sum was deposited in Court by the bank, but eventually the appeal was dismissed and the respondent took out the money in payment of his dues. The bank then made an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the Appellate Court for extension of time for filing an appeal against the ex parte decree. That application was dismissed on 27-9-1948. In the meantime the plaintiff-respondent had taken out an execution and obtained an order from this Court for possession. The Sheriff's officer endeavoured to obtain possession but he was resisted. On 1-10-1948 the bank made an application to the Court asking for three months' time to vacate the premises. On 26-11-1948, the bank filed a suit for setting aside the decree of August 14, 1948, on the ground of fraud, but eventually this suit also met the same fate and was dismissed. The bank also made an application for an injunction restraining the plaintiff from executing the decree. That application was ultimately dismissed. Between November 25 and November 30, 1948, the Sheriff received a number