Statutory interpretation: clear use of "decree" excluded a possession order under summary proceedings, denying rent-control relief.

The Supreme Court interpreted section 18(1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 as confined to a true decree for recovery of possession, not an order for possession made in summary proceedings under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. It relied on the statutory distinction between a decree and an order, noting that the 1948 and 1950 rent control schemes treated those remedies separately and that a marginal note could not enlarge clear text. The Court also held that any apparent hardship or omission could not justify judicial rewriting of the provision, so relief under section 18(1) was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the expression "decree for recovery of possession" in section 18(1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 includes an order for possession made under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.

Analysis: Section 18(1) of the 1950 Act granted relief only where a decree for recovery of possession had been made on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948 and possession had not yet been recovered. The body of the provision referred specifically to a "decree", and the Court held that the marginal note could not control clear statutory language. Under the 1948 Act, an "order" for possession under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 and a "decree" for possession in a suit were treated as distinct. The 1950 Act also retained that distinction by separately dealing with suits for recovery of possession in section 16 and Schedule B. The Court rejected the contention that the word "decree" should be expanded to include an order made in summary proceedings under Chapter VII of the 1882 Act, and further held that any hardship or apparent omission could not justify judicial rewriting of the statute.

Conclusion: The expression "decree for recovery of possession" in section 18(1) does not include an order for possession made under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, and the tenant was not entitled to relief under that provision.

Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court was set aside and the tenant's application for vacating the possession order was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory text is clear, a marginal note cannot enlarge its meaning, and a "decree" for recovery of possession cannot be construed to include a distinct "order" for possession when the governing statutes treat the two remedies separately.

---