JUDGMENT Sen, J. - This Rule has been obtained by the Petitioner, who is the landlord of certain premises. The facts briefly are as follows:--The Petitioner instituted proceedings for recovery of possession of certain premises u/s 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Act against the opposite party, who was his tenant. There was an order by consent giving the Petitioner landlord possession of the property. By the order, the tenant was given eleven months time to vacate. On the eleventh month, the tenant applied u/s 47 of the aforesaid Act for stay of further proceedings and agreed to bind himself with two sureties in a bond for such amount as the Small Cause Court thought reasonable to institute a suit without delay in the High Court against the Petitioner for compensation for trespass. The application was opposed in the Small Cause Court by the landlord Petitioner, who contended that as the order was passed by consent, no application u/s 47 of the aforesaid Act was maintainable. The court overruled this objection and stayed the proceedings. Against this order the present Rule has been obtained. 2. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that, as the opposite party had consented to the order passed u/s 43 of the said Act, it was not open to him to bring any suit in the High. Court for compensation for trespass and that consequently his application u/s 47 was bound to fail. For this proposition the Petitioner's advocate relies upon an unreported case decided by this Court in Gangaram Bharh v. Santosh Kumar Mitra (1949) Civil Revision Case, No. 1584 of 1948, decided by Chakravartti J. on Jan. 4, where the view propounded by learned advocate for the Petitioner finds support. 3. With very great respect to the learned Judge who decided this case I feel that I must dissent from this view which seems to me against the plain words of Section 47 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Act. His Lordship Chakravartti J. held that, where the occupant consented to an order for possession in favour of the landlord, he could not possibly treat the landlord as a trespasser and therefore he could not bring any suit for compensation for trespass. His Lordship Chakravartti J. held that, where the occupant consented to an order for possession in favour of the landlord, he could not possibly treat the landlord as a trespasser and therefore he could not bring any suit for compensation for trespass. That being so, his Lordship goes on to say that the Small Cause Court Judge should have refused the application for stay on the ground that the suit which the occupant proposed to bring would not lie. As I have stated before I respectfully dissent from this view. Section 47 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Act is in the following terms: Whenever, on an application being made u/s 41, the occupant binds himself, with two sureties, in a bond for such amount as the Small Cause Court thinks reasonable, having regard to the value of the property and the probable costs of the suit next hereinafter mentioned, to institute without delay a suit in the High Court against the Applicant, for compensation for trespass and to pay all the costs of such suit in case he does not prosecute the same or in case judgment therein is given for the Applicant, the Small Cause Court shall stay the proceedings on such application until such suit is dispossed of. If the occupant obtains a decree in any such suit against the Applicant such decree shall supersede the order (if any) made u/s 43. Nothing contained in Section 22 shall apply to suits under this section. 4. It is quite clear from the words of the section that, if the occupant binds himself in the manner provided in the section to bring a suit for compensation for trespass, the Court of Small Causes is bound to stay proceedings until that suit is disposed of. If the view taken by Chakravarti J. be correct, then it Would logically follow that, in deciding an application u/s 47 for stay of proceedings, it would be open to the Judge of the Court of Small Causes to decide beforehand whether the suit which the occupant proposed to institute in the High Court would lie or not. He would have to decide this point even before the plaint was filed. He would have to decide this point even before the plaint was filed. This seems to me to be rather an impossible position and there is nothing in the section which gives the Court of Small Causes power to pre-judge a suit which the occupant proposes to file on the Original Side of the High Court. Whether such a suit would lie or not is a matter which would arise after the filing of the suit and it is a question which can be decided only by the court in which the suit is to be filed. If the Small Cause Court Judge were given such powers, it would result in an impossible position. Because the order was obtained by consent, it does not follow that a suit for compensation for trespass would not lie. The consent may not be a real consent. The consent may have been obtained by fraud. The consent may be vitiated for some other reason. There are matters which will have to be decided in the suit instituted on the Original Side of this Court. There are not matters which concern the Judge of the Small Cause Court who is dealing with an application u/s 47. All that he is concerned with seeing is that the occupant undertakes to file a suit for compensation for trespass and binds himself with two sureties for such amount as the court may think reasonable for instituting such suit without delay. 5. In my opinion, the order passed by the court below is perfectly right and this Rule must therefore be discharged with costs.