ORDER

K.C. Chunder, J. - This Rule was issued at the instance of the tenant defendant. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment in 1947 and, as is usual, though he claims the house for his personal use and occupation, he is being driven from pillar to post. The Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946 was then in force. The landlord got the permission of the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller granted a conditional permission.

2. The tenant filed an appeal to the District Judge, 24-Parganas under the Ordinance. The District Judge in deciding the appeal very rightly passed a legal order by granting the permission unconditionally. Had the original order of the Rent Controller stood, there might have been some justification for the contention raised before us that the permission was not legal.

3. As regards the question that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to pass such an order, the jurisdiction is granted by Section 25 of the Ordinance. No question of Order 41, or anything analogous to it arises. The Rent Controller is not a Court and the District Judge is not acting as a Court of appeal in the sense in which the CPC contemplates a Court of appeal.

4. Then the Ordinance was extended by a fu