Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. As regards the actual form of the order we should make, it is necessary : to refer to a decision of Edgley and Latifur Kahman, JJ. in Gangjee Sajun & Co. v. Lalji Agarwala Jain ('46) 51 C.W.N. 131, which has subsequently been followed in a case not yet reported Surendra Nath Das v. Sm. Sukumari Debi Appeal No. 1164 of 1942 a decision to which one of us was a party. In the case before Edgley and Latifur Rahman JJ., as well, a decree for ejectment had been passed, although the suit appears to have been one which was not a suit for ejectment on account of non-payment of rent, and although the special Act had been pleaded. This Court did not set aside the decree so far as it related to ejectment, but merely directed that to the extent that it related to ejectment, the execution of the decree would remain stayed for the period during which the special Act might continue in force As far as can be gathered from the judgment, this order was passed on the basis of the proviso to Section 3, Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1940.