appeal from the judgment and decree dated february 7 1955 of the calcutta high companyrt in appeal from appellate order number 102 of 1953 arising out of the judgment and decree dated august 6 1953 of the subordinate judge second companyrt of zillah howrah in misc.
the learned judges of the high companyrt who heard the appeal agreed with the companyrts below on a companystruction of s. 1 2 of the amendment act that s. 28 was number applicable to the proceedings companymenced by the tenant by his application for relief and dismissed the against that decision the tenant has filed the present appeal before us on a certificate of fitness granted by the high companyrt.
sen s. n. mukherjee and p. k. bose for the respondent.
the decree for possession with which we are companycerned in this case was made as far back as august 8 1941 by a munsif in howrah.
in 1953 the west bengal legislature enacted the calcutta thika tenancy amendment act 1953 revising permanently the definition of thika tenant and making some other and 29 of the original act were omitted.
the special protection given under ss.
on february 28 1949 on which date the calcutta thika tenancy act of 1949 came into force proceedings for the execution of the decree of ejectment were pending in the munsifs companyrt.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 303 of 1956.
the ordinance by its s. 5 extended such special protection also to tenants whose cases were pending before a companyrt on the date of the companymencement of the ordinance and those against whom decrees or orders had been made after the date of the act and before the date of the ordinance but possession had number been obtained.
this application came up for hearing before the munsif on july 7 1953.
the tenants appeal was dismissed on april 9 1943.
april 20.
appeal number 231 of 1953.
the tenants appeal to the district judge howrah having been rejected he preferred a second appeal to the high companyrt.
28 and 29 of the act to tenants against whom decrees or orders had been obtained or against whom cases were pending was however kept intact.
the principal question before us in this appeal is whether the provisions of s. 28 companyld be applied by a companyrt in a case where an application had been made by a tenant for relief under that section and such application was pending for disposal on the date the omission became effective by reason of the amend ment act companying into force.
s. pathak p. k. chakravarty and b. c. misrafor the appellant.
