JUDGMENT Sen, J. - This is a Rule obtained by a tenant, against whom a decree in ejectment has been passed under the provisions of the Calcutta House Rent Control Order of 1943. The decree was passed on December 2, 1947 and it was by consent. The Petitioner and his sub-tenant have filed two petitions u/s 18 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, praying for the rescission of the decree passed under the Order of 1943. Both the applications were dismissed by the learned Court of Small Causes, Calcutta and the Petitioner alone filed an appeal before the Special Bench of the aforesaid Court purporting to act u/s 16 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948. The appeal has been dismissed and the Petitioner has obtained this Rule. 2. The Special Bench has held, first, that no appeal lay from the order passed by the Court of Small Causes on the application u/s 18 of the aforesaid Act. The view of the court was that Section 16(2) of the aforesaid Act of 1948, which allows appeals from a decree or order passed by the Court of Small Causes in a suit or proceeding referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 16, did not apply to an order passed u/s 18, upon an application made by the tenant. Secondly, the Special Bench held that, as the decree of 1947 was passed upon consent, the court could not vary or rescind the decree u/s 18 of the aforesaid Act and in support of this view, the court relied upon the decision of Parbati Debi v. S.N. Sen (1945) 50 C.W.N. 242. Lastly, the court held that the tenant had taken lease of the premises on the clear understanding that he would have no right to sublet the same and that he has sublet it in violation of the terms of his contract and that, therefore, the subletting was unlawful and the tenant could not get the benefit of Section 11(3) of the aforesaid Act after the rescinding of the decree. In my opinion, the court was perfectly right in holding that this decree could not be rescinded or varied and the reasons for my view are as follows: The court may rescind or vary the decree passed by it under the provisions of the Calcutta House Rent Control Order or Ordinance, only if it is of opinion that the decree or order would not have been passed or made if the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, was in force at the time that the decree or order was made. If such decree or order, made prior to the passing of the Act of 1948, is such as would have been made if the Act of 1948 had been in force at the time of the passing of the decree or of the order, then the court would have no jurisdiction to rescind or vary the decree. This is quite clear from the express terms of Section 18 of the Act of 1948. 3. Therefore, the question which arises is whether the decree passed in 1947 would have been passed if the Act of 1948 was then in force. As I have said before, the decree was passed by consent. There is nothing to show any other reason for the passing of the decree. It is not a decree passed on account of default of payment of rent or on account of subletting. The decree was passed merely on the ground that the parties consented to such a decree. Now, under the present Act of 1948, consent decrees can be passed. There is no prohibition in the Act by which parties are prevented from taking a decree by consent. A decree by consent is passed by reason of the operation of Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Where the parties prove, to the satisfaction of the court, that the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, the court is bound to order such agreement or compromise to be recorded and to pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the suit. The court has no option in the matter. Under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court must pass such a decree. The court has no option in the matter. Under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court must pass such a decree. Now, the present Act, although it excludes the operation of the Transfer of Property Act, the Presidency Small Cause Court Act or the Indian Contract Act in certain respects, it does not exclude the operation of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this connection, I would draw attention to the first part of Section 11(1) of the Act of 1948. It will be seen from that part of the sub-section that the provisions of the CPC have not been touched. They have, therefore, full effect. That being so, under the Act of 1948, if the parties consent to a decree by a compromise which is not unlawful, the court will be bound to pass a decree in accordance with the terms of the compromise so far as it relates to the suit. 4. Having regard to these circumstances, I hold that the application u/s 18 for rescinding or varying the decree passed in 1947 was rightly dismissed. That being so, I must uphold the order passed by the Special Bench on appeal. 5. Having regard to the view I have taken on this point it is unnecessary for me to deal with the other points which have been raised in the appeal before the Special Bench. 6. The Rule is accordingly discharged with costs. 7. Let the record be sent down at once.