The court emphasized the strict interpretation of statutory provisions and the limitations of retrospective operation, leading to the conclusion that no relief could be granted to the tenant under Section 18 of the Act.

( 1 ) THIS rule was obtained by the petitioners who are tenants against an order dated 1st February 1949 passed by Mr. M Mukherji, learned Judge, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, 6th Bench, rejecting an application under Section 18, West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act (XXXVIII [38] of 1948 ).

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners is that their predecessor was a tenant in respect of premises No. 38/4b Baghbazar Street. The landlord served a notice to quit under Section 106 T. P. Act, and started proceedings under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act on the ground of default. The petitioners filed written statements disputing the fact that they were defaulters. On 24th August 1948 an order was made under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. It appears that the petitioners deposited the arrears up to July 1948. It is alleged that since the passing of the order under Section 41 they are depositing rent before the Rent Controller. On 1st December 1948 the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act (XXXVIII [38] of 1948) came into force. On 7th January 1949 the petitioners made an application under Section 18 of the said Act. It is alleged by the petitioners that they tendered the costs of the ejectment proceedings to the landlord on 27th December 1948 and on the refusal by the landlord to accept the same deposited the amount in Court on 14th January 1949. On 1st February 1949 the learned Small Cause Court Judge rejected their application under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that the costs were not deposited within time. No finding was arrived at as regards the allegation of tender. The tenants moved this Court and obtained this Rule.

( 3 ) MR. Diptendra Mohan Ghose appearing for the petitioners contended that the tender on 27th December 1948 followed by a deposit on 14th January 1949 was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 12 (1) (b) of the said Act. Mr. Apurba Charan Mukherji appearing for the opposite party contended that the aforesaid tender, even if true, was not sufficient compliance with the statute. He also contended that Section 18, West Bangal Premises Rent Control Act cannot be invoked by the petitioners. He also contended that interest on arrears of rent was not paid as required by Section 12 (1) (b) of the Act.

( 4 ) IN my view of S 12 (1) (b) the tender as alleged coupled with the deposit did not satisfy the requirements of the Statute.

( 5 ) THE question as to how far Section 18, West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, hereinafter called the Act, helps the tenants, is one of some difficulty.

( 6 ) SECTION 18 runs as follows:"where any decree or order for the recovery of possession of any premises has been made, before the date of commencement of this Act but the possession of such premises has not been recovered from the tenant by the execution of such decree or order, the Court by which the decree or order was made may, if it is of opinion that the decree or order would not have been made if this Act had been in operation at the date of the making of the decree or order, rescind or vary the decree or order in such manner as the Court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act. "

( 7 ) THE effect of Section 18 of the Act is obviously to give the Act a retrospective operation for the limited purpose of rescinding or varying a decree or order for possession passed before 1st December 1948 which is the date of the commencement of the Act. To test whether the decree or order for possession is to be rescinded or varied the Act is to be deemed to be in operation when the decree or order for possession was made. The suit or proceeding for possession must also be deemed to be alive on the date when the decree or order for possession was made and we are to see whether the Court would have made the decree or order for possession on that date if the Act was then in force. Thi