The learned Judge has taken the view that in case where, an appellate, companyrt dismisses the appeal, the principle of merger of the decree of the lower companyrt with that of the appellate companyrt has numberapplication and therefore the effective decree in the case was the one passed by the trial companyrt on November, 24, 1958 which was before the companymencement of the President Act 4 of 1968.
By a judgment dated May 31, 1971 a learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision application, granted the application filed by the respondent under section 17 D and directed the dismissal of the suit.
By a judgment dated July 15, 1970 the learned Munsif, Second Court, Alipore, dismissed that application on the ground that the decree for possession passed by the trial companyrt on November 24, 1958, had merged in the decree passed by the High Court on January 8, 1969, that in truth and in substance the operative decree was the one passed by the High Court and as that decree was, passed after August 26, 1967, being the date of the companymencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Amendment Act, 1968, the application filed by the respondent under section 17 D of the act of 1956 was number maintainable.
A Full Bench of the High Court held that though it had numberjurisdiction to issue a writ against the Central Board of Revenue which was permanently located outside its territorial jurisdiction, the Board having merely dismissed the respondents appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Customs, the real effective order was that of the Collector whose seat was located within the jurisdiction of the High Court and therefore a writ companyld issue as against him.
On November 24, 1958 the learned Second Munsif, Alipore, passed a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiffs holding that by reason of defaults in the payment of rent, the respondent was number entitled to the protection of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Temporary Provisions Act, 1950.
Just as in Amritlal Bhogilals case the question of registration of the assessee firm was number before the appellate authority and therefore there companyld be numbermerger of the order of the Income tax Officer in the appellate order, so in the case of Madurai Mills there companyld be numbermerger of the assessment order in the revisional order as the question regarding exclusion of the value of yarn purchased from outside the State was number the subject matter of revision before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
After the cessation of the emergency, the West Bengal legislature passed the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Amendment Act, 1969 with a view to re enacting with modification Presidents Act 4 of 1968.
The appeal filed by the appellant to the State Government was dismissed on January 2, 1962.
The respondent led a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court against the decision of the Central Board of Revenue which had dismissed his appeal.
The appellate order also shows that the appeal after being heard on merits, was dismissed with the modification that the res pondent should vacate the premises by the end of January, 1970.
They were therefore brought on the record of the appeal in place of the original plantiffs.
The respondent filed a revision application in the High Court of Calcutta against the judgment of the learned Munsif.
During the Proclamation, of emergency issued by the President of India on February 20, 1968, Act XII of 1956 was amended by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Amendment Act, Presidents Act 4 of 1968, which was given retrospective effect from August 26, 1967.
Premises Tenancy Act, XII of 1956.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment Order dated the 31st May, 1971 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No.
He then filed a revision application to the Inspector General of Police which was also dismissed on April 22, 1950.
The respondent filed Second Appeal No.
175/ Rupees one hundred and seventy five per month, on account of current rents or mesne profits.
The entire decree of the trial companyrt was taken in appeal to the first appellate companyrt and then to the High Court.
4, the Indian Aluminum Company Ltd., Calcutta.
The respondent filed an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police which was dismissed on May 7.
During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants had purchased the right, title and interest of the plantiffs in the suit premises and they had also obtained an assignment of the decretal rights in their favour.
1 On April 20, 1948 the District Superintendent of Police passed an order of dismissal against the respondent Mohammad Nooh who was a head companystable.
The appellant in that case was dismissed by an order passed by respondent No.
8 177 Sup CI/75 Rs.
4 into the alleged misconduct before passing the order of dismissal.
128 of 1972.
In the instant case the subject matter of the suit and the subject matter of the appeal were identical.
1255 of 1967 against the decree of the 1st appellate companyrt and that appeal, after a companytested hearing, was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta on January 8, 1969.
While dismissing the appeal, the High Court granted to the respondent time to vacate the suit premises till the end of January, 1970 on the respondent giving a written undertaking to the companyrt that he will hand over quiet and peaceful possession of the premises to the appellants on the expiry of the aforesaid period.
The appellant thereafter moved the Orissa High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution asking that the orders passed by the, State Government and respondent No.
4 be quashed, on the ground that numbernotice was given to him for misconduct and numberinquiry was held by respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The West Bengal Premises Rent Control Temporary Provisions Act, 1950 was repealed by section 40 of the West Bengal.
In between the decree for possession passed by the High Court in the appellants favour on January 8, 1969 and the expiry of the period allowed to the respondent to vacate the premises, several amendments were made to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, XII of 1956, The Act of 1956 by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Second Amendment Act, 1969 The Act of 1969 which came into force on November 14, 1969.
This Court has granted to the appellants special leave to appeal, from the judgment of the High Court.
That decree was companyfirmed in appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Alipore, on April 12, 1967.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. In this appeal by special leave from the judgment of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta, two questions are raised for our companysideration on behalf of the appellants who have obtained against the respondent a decree for eviction 1 whether the decree of the trial companyrt has merged in the decree of the High Court and 2 whether by reason of section 17 D of the, West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 the decree for eviction is incapable of execution.
2519 of 1970.
within the 15th of the next succeeding month according to the same calendar, a sum of 1 1959 S.C.R. 713.
Long, long back on May 19, 1953 Messrs. Hind State Private Ltd., the predecessors in title of the appellants, filed against the respondent a suit for eviction on the ground of number payment of rent.
Sen, Som Nath Chatterjee, B.P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi, for the Appellant.
Chatterjee and Sukumar Ghose, for the Respondent.
