34 of 1953 .
87 of 1954, arising out of the order of the 1st Additional Court of the Munsif at Sealdah dated February 2, 1954, in Misc.
134 of 1954, affirming the appeal against the judgment and order dated July 29, 1954, of the Court of the District Judge of 24 Parganas in Misc.
On May 10, 1955, the appellant filed a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court and special leave was granted to him on May 18, 1955.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 29, 1955, of the Calcutta High Court in appeal from Appellate Order No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
291 of 1955.
This decree was challenged by the appellant by preferring an appeal before the District Court and a second appeal before the High Court at Calcutta but both those appeals failed and the decree for ejectment passed by the trial companyrt was companyfirmed.
96 of 1953 .
The appellant is a thika tenant in respect of a portion of the premises No.
Judicial Case No.
This application was rejected by Mr. Justice Renupada Mukherjee who had heard the second appeal.
This point arises in this way.
The appellant then applied for leave to prefer an appeal under the Letters Patent.
96 of 1953.
C. Chatterjee and S. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent.
Appeal No.
46 of 1948 a decree for ejectment was passed against him and in favour of the respondent on March 16, 1949.
Thereupon the appellant filed a Miscellaneous Judicial Case under s. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the companyrt raising several objections to the decree holders claim for execution Miscellaneous Judicial Case No.
Ultimately on May 22, 1953, the respondent filed an execution case before the First Additional Court, Sealdah Title Execution Case No.
A miscellaneous appeal preferred by the appellant before the learned District Judge, 24 Parganas, as well as the second miscellaneous appeal preferred by him before the High Court at Calcutta were likewise dismissed.
By this application the respondent claimed that the possession of the property companyered by the decree should be delivered to him.
In Suit No.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. This is an appeal by special leave in execution proceedings and the short point which the appellant has raised before us is that, under s. 5 1 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 West Bengal II of 1949 as amended by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Amendment Act, 1953 West Bengal VI of 1953 , execution proceedings taken out by the decrees against him companyld be entertained only by the companytroller and number by the civil companyrts.
1957 September 10.
28, R. G. Kar Road in Calcutta.
