A suit for eviction of a lessee on forfeiture of the lease is not abated under section 19 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981, and the vesting of the landlord's interest under section 5 of the Act does not automatically lead to the abatement of the suit.

Sen, J.: The plaintiff is the petitioner before us in this revisional application. The application is being heard on notice to and on contest by the defendant. It is not in dispite that the defendant was a lessee under the plaintiff where the leasehold premises was described as follows :––

"ALL THAT piece or parcel of land together with the boundary wall-being Premises No.7, Nawab Abdur Rahaman Street in the town of Calcutta in the Schedule hereunder more fully described hereinafter referred to as the demised premises which term shall include the said land and boundary wall in the said Premises No.7, Nawab Abdur Rahaman Street (a) also all buildings and structures which may hereafter be erected thereon by the lessee and additions, alterations and improvements therein or thereto and the fittings and fixture thereof but excluding any machines, stocks, plants, accessories, fans, air-condition plants and contrivances, wooden and/or steel partitions (whether fixed to the earth or the buildings in the said premises and excluding the special installations and fittings worked by electricity or gas or otherwise set up by the lessee."

One of the terms in the lease provides as follows :––

"Provided, however, that all such new constructions with fittings and fixture (save and except any machines, tools, plants, accessories, fans, air-condition plants and contrivances, wooden and/or steel partition whether fixed to the earth or the buildings and the special installations and fittings worked by electricity or gas or otherwise and set up by lessee) shall be deemed to be the property of the lessor and included in the term 'demised premises' under these presents." Such a lease was for 51 years.

2. The plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 1695 of 1975 of the 9th Bench of learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, out of which the present revisional application arises, for recovery of possession of the demised premises as aforesaid on the ground of forfeiture of the lease on breach of covenants incorporated therein and also for arrears of rent.

3. Pending the suit, the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), having come into effect, an objection was raised on behalf of the defendant that the suit has abated under the provisions thereof. Referring to the provision of section 19 of the said Act the learned Judge seems to have taken the view that the plaintiff's claim for recovery of possession on eviction of the defendant stands abated though not the claim for recovery of arrears of rent. The learned Judge by the impugned order accordingly recorded abatement of the suit in part and feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the present revisional application.

4. Mr. Mitra appearing in support of this revisional application has raised two points. In the first place it has been contended by Mr. Mitra that the suit being one for recovery of possession as against a lessee based on forfeiture of the lease, section 19 of the said Act can have no application. According to Mr. Mitra, the said provision contemplates a proceeding under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 which alone abates on the statutory mandate incorporated in section 19 and not any and every proceeding including a suit for eviction of a lessee who was not a thika tenant in terms of the provision of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949. The second point raised by Mr. Mitra is to the effect that, in any event, in the present case on the terms of the lease the defendant being a lessee in respect of the structures which, though built by him, vested in ownership with the lessor, a suit for eviction of such a lessee is not hit in any manner by any of the provisions of the said Act.

5. Mr. Rahaman appearing on behalf of the defendant has contested both the points thus raised by Mr. Mitra. According to Mr. Rahaman, section 19 speaks of all proceedings and as such, it need not necessarily be limited to proceedings as under the