JUDGMENT Banerjee, J. - This is a suit for ejectment. The claim for rents is given up. 2. The tenancy was determined by a notice to quit expiring at the end of January, 1948. 3. There is no dispute that the Defendant sublet the suit premises for more than six consecutive months before the suit. 4. The Defendant admits that there is nothing in writing to prove a contract or authority which expressly permits the subletting. 5. The defence is that the premises in suit were part of another premises, which were let out to the Defendant about 20 years ago on terms and conditions, inter alia, that the Defendant would be entitled to sublet at his option and without any reference to his landlord. 6. It is alleged by the Defendant that the original premises were partitioned and the suit premises were separately numbered and allotted to the Plaintiff's husband, who subsequently transferred the premises to the Plaintiff; that the Defendant continued to be a tenant of the premises in suit under the Plaintiff's husband and after transfer, under the Plaintiff on the terms and conditions aforesaid. 7. It is further alleged by the Defendant that he has to the knowledge and with the consent of the Plaintiff and her husband let out the suit premises to various tenants from time to time and realised rents. 8. It is also alleged that the Defendant at his own costs constructed two rooms on the premises in suit. 9. Shortly, therefore, the defence is that there was a verbal contract which permitted the Defendant to sublet. 10. Another point taken is that this Court has no jurisdiction. 11. As to the first point, the Act which governs this case is the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, XXXVIII of 1948. The relevant section of that Act is section 11, which reads: Section 11. 10. Another point taken is that this Court has no jurisdiction. 11. As to the first point, the Act which governs this case is the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, XXXVIII of 1948. The relevant section of that Act is section 11, which reads: Section 11. " Notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, or the Indian Contract Act, 1872, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made as long as the tenant pays to the full extent the rent allowable by this Act and performs the conditions of the tenancy; * * * * Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall apply.- (b) where the tenant has sublet, or otherwise transferred his interest in, the Premises- (I for more than six consecutive months and to the extent either of the whole or a major portion Of the Premises, in the absence of any contract or other authority in writing expressly permitting such subletting or transfer. 12. It is not necessary to set out the other portion of that clause. 13. It is said that the "contract" permitting the subletting need not be in writing; it is enough if it is oral. It is contended that the words "in writing" do not govern the word "contract" in the section, but they govern the word " authority" thereto. 14. I do not think that is the correct interpretation of the clause. In my view, the word "other" makes it clear that the words "in writing" qualify both the words "contract" and the " authority." 15. The word "other, "--which I find from the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, means, " one of the two, " " the remaining (person, thing or group) of two "--brings the " contract " in line with the " authority"; and shows that the intention of the legislature is that the "contract" or the "authority" must be in writing, if it is to protect the tenant from the mischief of the proviso to the clause I have set out above. That seems to be the intention of the legislature. If the intention were otherwise, the words would have been--"contract or an authority in writing " and not "contract or other authority in writing." 16. That seems to be the intention of the legislature. If the intention were otherwise, the words would have been--"contract or an authority in writing " and not "contract or other authority in writing." 16. The fact that the subletting was before the Act makes no difference to the tenant. It has been so held in three cases of this Court, Shaikh Mohamed Omer v. T.B. Timms 52 C.W.N. 695 (1947), Gurupada Halder v. Arjun Das Goenka 52 O.W.N. 604 (1947) and [Baidya Nath Chatterjee v. Satish Chandra Das Unreported Suit No. 2000 (1947)]. 17. Passing to the second point, namely, the question of jurisdiction, I have already held in Suit No. 2934 of 1948 [Meghmala Dutt v. Amulya Ratan Bhattacharjee Affirmed on Appel 53 O.W.N. 474 (1948)] that the Court of Small Causes is not competent to try a suit for the recovery of possession of immovable property. It is not necessary, to reiterate my reasons here. I hold this point against the Defendant. 18. In the result, I make a decree for possession of the premises in suit, particulars of which are given in paragraph I of the plaint. I also make a decree for mesne profits at the rate of rent till possession is delivered. The Plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit.