Ramoni Mohan Ghoshal vs Jogesh Chandra Das

P.N. Mookerjee, J.—In this Rule, the tenant, Petitioner, challenges two orders of the learned munsif, 1st Additional Court, Alipore, one dated April 11, 1951, allowing his application u/s 6 of the new West Bengal Act LXII of 1950 for rescission of an ejectment decree passed against him on September 25, 1950, but directing him to deposit a sum of Rs. 313-15-3p. within fifteen days and the other dated June 8, 1951, rejecting his application u/s 151 of the CPC for accepting the deposit, then offered to be made, by enlarging the time given under the previous order, dated April 11, 1951.

The relevant circumstances may be shortly stated as follows:

The landlord, opposite party, brought the ejectment suit against the tenant, Petitioner, on May 13, 1949, alleging that the tenancy had been ipso facto determined under the Rent Control Act of 1948 then in force. This suit was decreed ex parte on September 25, 1950. In the meantime, the Rent Control Act of 1950 (W. Ben. XVII of 1950) had come into force and this Act was later amended by West Bengal Act LXII of 1950, to which reference has been made above. On January 22, 1951, the Petitioner applied u/s 5 of this new Rent Control (Amendment) Act of 1950 (W. Ben. LXII of 1950) for rescission of the ejectment decree. This was allowed on April 11, 1951, and the Petitioner was directed to make the requisite deposit, viz., deposit of a sum of Rs. 313-15-3 within fifteen days. The deposit was not made within the time allowed but the court, instead of passing any final orders in the matter, directed it to be put up for further orders on May 7, 1951. On May 5, 1951, the tenant Petitioner filed an application u/s 151 of the CPC offering to make the deposit forthwith and praying for acceptance of the same upon enlargement of the time given therefore by the previous order, dated April 11, 1951. This application was eventually fixed for hearing in June, 1951, and meanwhile the tenant Petitioner made the deposit at his risk on May 17, 1951. Thereafter, by his order, dated June 5, 1951, the learned Munsif dismissed the Petitioner''s application u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The present Rule was then obtained from this Court on June 21, 1951.

From what I have stated above, it is quite clear that Section 151 of the CPC can have no application to this case. The order, dated April 11, 1951, was passed on an application u/s 6 of the West Bengal Act LXII of 1950. Under that section, the court may grant appropriate relief u/s 18 of the Rent Control Act of 1950 (W. Ben. XVII of 1950). This relief can be granted either u/s 18, Sub-sections (1) to (4) or under Sub-section (5) of the said section read with Section 14 of the Act. In either case, however, the law clearly contemplates that whatever time is given to the tenant to make the requisite deposit that time is final and, therefore, cannot be extended by the court u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned munsif was, therefore, right in rejecting the Petitioner''s application u/s 151 of the Code and that order cannot be touched.

The question that still remains is whether the learned munsif''s order, dated April 11, 1951, granting the Petitioner only fifteen days'' time to make the necessary deposit was right in law. It is quite clear from the said order that the learned munsif obviously granted that time upon the view that in an application u/s 6 of the amending Act (W. Ben. LXII of 1950) the part of Section 18 of the original Act (W. Ben. XVII of 1950) that is attracted is Sub-section (5), and that that Sub-section entitles the court only to grant relief u/s 14 of the Act and that, therefore, the maximum time that can be given for the making of the deposit would be fifteen days. It is contended before me by the learned advocate for the Petitioner that the learned munsif''s view of the law was wrong and he ought to have held that in an application u/s 6 of the amending Act LXII of 1950, the part of Section 18 of the original Act XVII of 1950 which is attracted is the earlier part, viz., Sub-sections (1) to (4), and that, therefore, the court has power to grant time up to a limit of forty days for making the necessary deposit. It is, accordingly, urged that the order passed by the learned munsif on April 11, 1951, was wrong and should be revised in accordance with law.

In the view which I am taking, it is not necessary for me to express any opinion on this question of law raised by the learned advocate for the Petitioner, viz., whether in an application u/s 6 of the amending Act LXII of 1950, the court has power to grant relief under Sub-sections (1) to (4) or Sub-section (5) of Section 18 of the original Act XVII of 1950 and, accordingly, I express no opinion on the said question.

The material portion of the order, dated April 11, 1951, runs as follows:

Defendant is directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 313-15-3. within fifteen days On such deposit the decree passed against the Defendant would be vacated. To 27-4-51 for further orders.

This may or may not have been a final order on the Petitioner''s application u/s 6 of the Act LXII of 1950. But it is not necessary for me to decide that question too as whatever be the nature of that order, whether final or not, that will not affect the decision of this Rule as will be, presently, seen below.

It has been held by a Bench of this Court in the case of Radharani Das v. Sisir Kumar Banerjee Unreported decision of Das Gupta and P.N. Mookerjee J.J. in Civil Revision No. 1465 of 1951, dated Sept. 10, 1952 that a final order on an application u/s 6 of the Rent Control (Amendment) Act of 1950 (West Ben. LXII of 1950) or Section 18 of the original Rent Control Act of 1950 (West Ben. XVII of 1950) is a decree under the CPC and is appealable as such. If, therefore, the learned munsif''s order, dated April 11, 1951 was a final order on the Petitioner''s application u/s 6 of the amending Act LXII of 1950, it was,open to appeal and, therefore, not revisable u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If, on the other hand, it was not a final order but was to be followed by a further order this further order finally disposing of the Petitioner''s application u/s 6 of the amending Act would be appealable under the Code and, in such circumstances, the interlocutory order, dated April 11, 1951, ought not to be interfered with u/s 115 of the Code, the Petitioner''s remedy obviously lying in an appeal against the final order to be passed on his said application u/s 6 of the Rent Control (Amendment) Act LXII of 1950. In either view, therefore, the learned munsif''s order, dated April 11, 1951, cannot or at any rate, ought not to be interfered with in revision.

This Rule must, accordingly, fail and it is discharged leaving it open to the Petitioner to take such steps in the matter as he may be advised to do in the light of the observations contained in this judgment.

There will be no order for costs in this Rule.