The amended provisions of Order 21 Rules 97 to 103 of the Civil Procedure Code bar a separate suit challenging the determination made under the provisions set out in those rules.

1. DEBA Prokash Sett has filed this Appeal from Original order Against the order dated 26th February, 1979 passed by the learned Judge, 4th Bench, City Civil Court. adjudicating his claim under Rule 98 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. An application had been made by the decree-holder respondent, Hari Prosad Malllick, inter-alia, complaining that the appellant and others, without any just cause, had resisted and obstructed execution of a decree for recovery of possession obtained by him against Mrs. Clarice: Munks in respect of the ground floor suite no. 1 of Premises No. 4, Wood street, Calcutta. Hari Prosad Mullick, the said decree-holder has filed a revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 21st September, 1982 passed by the learned Judge, 13th Bench, city Civil Court rejecting his objection that the Title Suit No. 678 of 1980 brought by the said Deba Prokash Sett against him, was not maintainable.

2. WE have heard analogously the appeal and the revisional application which involve many common questions of law and fact. For the reasons, presently indicated the appeal preferred by deba Prokash Sett ought to be dismissed and the revisional application presented by Hari Prosad Mullick ought to be allowed in the manner indicated hereinafter.

It appears that in August, 1961 Hari prosad Mullick and three others had jointly granted in favour of the afore-said Mrs. Clarice Munks a lease for a period of 21 years of the said suite no. 1 in the ground floor of No. 4, Wood Street, Calcutta. The petitioner, Hari Prasad Mullick has annexed to his revisional application a copy of a registered deed of partition dated 13th February, 1965 purporting to allot exclusively in his share the aforesaid suit property.

3. ON or about 20th July, 1972 Hari prosad Mullick had instituted Title suit No. 780 of 1972 against Mrs. Clarice Munks in the City Civil Court at calcutta, inter-alia, for recovery of possession of the aforesaid suit no. 1 in the ground floor of no. 4, Wood Street, calcutta and on 13th of July, 1973 bad obtained an exparte decree against her. The decree-holder Hari Prosad Mullick, thereafter filed Title Execution case Mo. 93 of 1973 for executing the said decree for recovery of possession against the judgment debtor, Mrs. Clarice Munks. In the said execution case the decree holder had filed an application under order 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure code making the aforesaid judgment debtor the appellant Deba Prokash Sett and another person as opposite parties. The decree holder had prayed for issue of a fresh writ of delivery of possession with police help. The said application was registered as Misc. case no. 93 of 1973. Thereupon, the appellant the said Deba Prokash Sett, had appeared in the said Misc. Case and had prayed that he may be added as an opposite party. After contested hearing in course of which the parties adduced evidence, as already stated, the learned Judge, 4th bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta has allowed the decree holder's application under order 21 Rule 97 of the Code and has permitted him to take possession of the premises with police help. The said order of the trial court in terms of Rule 103 of order 21 of the Civil Procedure code has the force of a decree and the appellant has preferred the instant miscellaneous appeal. In our view, there is no merit in the said appeal preferred by the said Deba Prokash Sett. The learned Judge of the court below has after rightly held that the lease in favour of mrs. Clarice Munks which was entered into after commencement of the- West bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and was for a term of 21 years was governed by the Transfer of Property Act. The lessee herself and persons claiming under her, inter- alia, were not entitled to protection under the aforesaid Rent Control legislation.

4. MR. Ranjit Kumar Banerjee, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of. the appellant, himself has fairly submitted that