JUDGMENT 1. IN these two appeals against ejectment decrees, by tenant-appellants, we are concerned with the question whether the appeals were rightly presented before and entertained by the Chief Judge of the Calcutta Small Causes Court. The ejectment suits were filed after the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, had come into force, and under the provisions of section 20 of that Act and the Schedules of the Act, the ejectment suits were filed before the Calcutta Small Causes Court. The Chief Judge transferred both the suits to another Judge of the Calcutta Small Causes Court, namely, Sri B. Pal who passed decrees for ejectment in both the suits. The value of the suit in each case being below Rs. 2000/- the appeals were preferred before the Chief Judge of the Calcutta Small Causes Court and the appeals were entertained and heard by him. It may be mentioned that the appeals were dismissed. But it has been urged before us that under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, as amended by the City Civil Court and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Amendment Act of 1957, the Chief Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain or hear the appeals. 2. UNDER the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1950, in view of the provisions of section 16 and Schedule B thereto, ejectment suits in respect of premises the rent of which did not exceed Rs. 500/- per month would be filed before the Chief Judge of the Calcutta Small Causes Court and could be heard by the Chief Judge or any other Judge of the Calcutta Small Causes Court to whom the suit was transferred. There was a special provision for appeal contained in the Rent Control Act of 1950 itself, vide section 32, sub-section (6) of the Act, namely, where the value of the suit did not exceed Rs. 5000/- the appeal would lie to a Bench consisting of the Chief Judge and another Judge of the Calcutta Small Causes Court. Accordingly, so long as the Rent Control Act of 1950 was in force, there was no confusion about the law and appeals from ejectment decrees upto the value of Rs. 5000/ - were entertained by the Appellate Bench consisting of the Chief Judge and another Judge of the Calcutta Small Causes Court. Accordingly, so long as the Rent Control Act of 1950 was in force, there was no confusion about the law and appeals from ejectment decrees upto the value of Rs. 5000/ - were entertained by the Appellate Bench consisting of the Chief Judge and another Judge of the Calcutta Small Causes Court. The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act of 1956 which replaces the Rent Control Act of 1950 contains provisions similar to section 16 and schedule B of the 1950 Act as regards entertainment of ejectment suits, vide section 20 and the schedule, but it does not contain any provision similar to section 32, sub-section (6) of the 1950 Act relating to appeals. In other words, there is no special provision made for appeals from ejectment decrees but it is provided in section 29, sub-section (6) that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all suits and proceedings referred to in section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Section 20 of the Act as already mentioned, refers only to suits and proceedings by the landlord against the tenant for recovery of possession of premises. It does not refer to appeals. Before the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act of 1956 was enacted the City Civil Court Act of 1953 had been passed although it had not been brought into force; it was brought into force in February 1957. There was a schedule in the City Civil Court Act purporting to amend schedule B of the Rent Control Act of 1950 and providing that the ejectment suits which under the provisions of Rent Control Act of 1950 could be entertained by the Calcutta Small Causes Court, would lie instead to the City Civil Court. But the City Civil Court Act did not contain any reference to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 which had come into force before the City Civil Court Act was put into operation. Therefore, when the City Civil Court began functioning, a confusion arose as to the proper forum of ejectment suits; and that was sought to be clarified by the City Civil Court and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act of 1957, which was published in the Gazette and came into force on 13th January, 1958. Therefore, when the City Civil Court began functioning, a confusion arose as to the proper forum of ejectment suits; and that was sought to be clarified by the City Civil Court and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act of 1957, which was published in the Gazette and came into force on 13th January, 1958. It purported to amend the schedule of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and provided that where the value of the suit for ejectment did not exceed Rs. 10,000/- the ejectment suit would lie in the City Civil Court, in other words, the jurisdiction of the Calcutta Small Causes Court to entertain such suits was taken away; but there was a saving proviso as follows: "provided further that any suit, appeal or proceeding instituted in the Calcutta High Court or in the Court of the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and pending on the date of the commencement of the City Civil Court and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Amendment Act of 1957 shall be continued as if this amendment had not been made." In other words, the proviso saved all ejectment suits and all appeals from decrees in such suits which were pending in the Calcutta Small Causes Court on the date of the commencement of the Amendment Act, namely, on 13th January, 1958. 3. IN the two suits with which we are concerned, the judgments of the Trial Court were passed on 24th July, 1958 and the appeals necessarily were filed thereafter. Therefore the appeals before the Chief Judge were not pending on the 13th January, 1958 and, therefore, the saving proviso of the Amendment Act of 1957 referred to above could not validate the appeals filled before the Chief Judge with which we are concerned, if they were not filed in the proper forum. The question is whether these appeals were rightly instituted before the Chief Judge, or they should have been filed in the High Court. The relevant portion of the schedule of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, with which we are concerned, runs as follows: "where the premises are situate on land, wholly within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court- (i) when the rent payable for one month for the premises exceeds Rs. The relevant portion of the schedule of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, with which we are concerned, runs as follows: "where the premises are situate on land, wholly within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court- (i) when the rent payable for one month for the premises exceeds Rs. 500-The Calcutta High Court, (ii) In all other cases-The Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta, who shall entertain and try the suit as a Court of District Judge under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887: provided that he shall be entitled to transfer the suit for trial to any other Judge of the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta, who shall try it as a Court of Subordinate Judge under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887." 4. THE above extract shows that the ejectment suits upto the value of Rs. 6000/- were to be filed before the Court of the Chief Judge of the Calcutta Small Causes Court, who could entertain and try them as a District Judge or could transfer them to any other Judge of the Calcutta Small Causes Court and such Judge would try them as a Subordinate Judge. It is true that appeals from the decisions of a Subordinate Judge in suits valued upto Rs. 5000/-would lie to the Court of the District Judge, but the Judge of the Calcutta Small Causes Court is not really a Subordinate Judge under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, but for the purpose of ejectment suits in respect of premises situated within the original jurisdiction of the High Court, he was deemed to be one. Similarly the Chief Judge is not really a District Judge within the meaning of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, but for the purpose of entertaining and trying ejectment suits he was to be deemed as such. Accordingly, for the purposes of hearing appeals he could not within the terms of the Schedule be regarded as the Court of a District Judge, and therefore the conclusion would follow that the appeals from the decisions of the Judges of the Calcutta Small Causes Court in such suits were wrongly entertained by the Chief Judge, there being no express provision in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, authorising the Chief Judge to do so. This conclusion is strengthened by consideration of the new state of affairs brought about by the operation of the City Civil Courts. The present position is that all ejectment suits upto the value of Rs. 10,000/- arising in respect of premises within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court are entertained in the City Civil Court and appeals from ejectment suits decided by a Judge of the City Civil Court naturally lie to the High Court. The ejectment suits arising from the same area but already filed before the Small Causes Court before the clarification of the law by the Amendment Act of 1957 were saved but it is natural to expect that in respect of appeals save appeals already filed by 13-1-58 their position would be the same, in other words, the appeals should lie to the High Court and not to any other authority. 5. WE have also been referred to a decision of the Patna High Court and a decision of the Allahabad High Court in respect of matters which are ordinarily to be heard by the District Judge as the Chief Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction in a district but which under the rules made by the High Court may be heard by a Subordinate Judge. In the Patna case, (1) namely, Baroda Debya v. (Srimati) Phutumani, (1) A. I. R. 1933 Patna 276 (2), it was held that where an application before a District Judge for Probate of a Will is transferred by him to a Subordinate Judge under section 23 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge would lie to the High Court and not to the Court of a District Judge. In the Allahabad case, namely, Sohna v. Khalak Singh and another (2) I. L. R. XIII All. 78, it was held that the words under section 24 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, namely, "subject to the rules applicable to like proceedings when disposed of by the District Judge" would include the rules relating to appeals: and therefore orders passed under that section by a Subordinate Judge in proceedings under the Bengal Miners Act would lie to the Court of the District Judge. 6. 6. BOTH the above decisions turned on the wording of section 24 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, which provides that when a Subordinate Judge deals with a matter which is ordinarily dealt with by the District Judge, e. g., cases under the Indian Succession Act which cannot be disposed of by the Subordinate Judge as a delegate, the Subordinate Judge shall dispose of the proceedings subject to the rules applicable to the proceedings when disposed of by the District Judge. In section 23 there is also provision for transfer to the Court of the Munsif, but section 24 provides that when the matter is dealt with by the Munsif, the appeal shall lie to the District Judge. In respect of matters transferred to the Subordinate Judge there is no such provision, and it has been held that the appeals shall lie to the High Court and not to the District Judge in view of the terms of section 24 that the transferee Court shall deal with the matters subject to the rules applicable to like proceedings when disposed of by the District Judge. In the present case we are, of course, not concerned with suits transferred under the special provision of section 23 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act; we are concerned with suits transferred under the provisions of the special law, namely, the Schedule of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956; but for reasons already mentioned, namely, that the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes is deemed to be a Court of District Judge only for the purpose of entertaining and trying the ejectment suits and not for the purpose of hearing appeals, we hold that the appeals could not be entertained by the Chief Judge when the decrees were passed by any other Judge of the Calcutta Small Causes Court; and therefore, the appeals were entertained by the Chief Judge and heard by him without jurisdiction. 7. THE question may naturally be raised whether the second appeal is competent when it is found that the Chief Judge heard the appeal without having jurisdiction to do so. On this point there appears to be a number of concurrent decisions of this Court, holding that even though the lower Appellate Court entertains an appeal without jurisdiction, a second appeal lies. On this point there appears to be a number of concurrent decisions of this Court, holding that even though the lower Appellate Court entertains an appeal without jurisdiction, a second appeal lies. We may refer among other cases to Ranjit Misser v. Ramudar Singh (3) 16 C. L. J. 77, Bandiram Mookerjee v. Purna Chandra Roy (4) 27 C. L. J. 115 and Wajuddi Pramanik v. Md. Balaki Moral (5) 30 C. W. N. 63. In all these cases it was held that if the Court of appeal below entertained an appeal which it had no, jurisdiction to do, an appeal would lie from the decree of that court. Mr. Manindra Nath Ghosh appearing for the respondent has sought to distinguish these rulings by pointing out that in the above reported cases, the second appeal was preferred by the Respondent in the first appeal court, in other words, the appellant in the second appeal was not responsible for filing the appeal before a wrong court; but the reasoning on which it was laid down that where the lower appellate court had entertained an appeal without jurisdiction a second appeal would be maintainable, did not proceed on the limited ground that the appellant in the second appeal had not been responsible for filing an appeal before a wrong court, but on the ground that the order of the lower appellate court amounted to a decree, even though it was a decree made without jurisdiction and, therefore, a second appeal would lie. It is too late to challenge this line of decisions holding that a second appeal is maintainable even where the Court which entertained the first appeal did not have jurisdiction to do so. We must, therefore, hold that the appeals before us were competent and in these appeals we are competent to decide on the question of jurisdiction of the lower appellate Court, namely, the court of the Chief Judge and hold that the Chief Judge had no jurisdiction and therefore the appeals preferred before him were incompetent. 8. We must, therefore, hold that the appeals before us were competent and in these appeals we are competent to decide on the question of jurisdiction of the lower appellate Court, namely, the court of the Chief Judge and hold that the Chief Judge had no jurisdiction and therefore the appeals preferred before him were incompetent. 8. IN the case of Ranjit Misser v. Ramudar Singh (3) 16 C. L. J. 77 the proper order to be passed in such cases was laid down as follows: "the proper course to follow, therefore, is to allow this appeal, discharge the order of the District Judge, record on the memorandum of appeal presented to that Court an order of return for presentation to the proper court, and, finally to regard the memorandum as presented in this Court on this day." Mr. Ghosh has urged that the question of presenting the memorandums of appeal again to this Court is not converted by the powers of the appellate court under section 107 taken with Order 7, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that we should stop short by making an order for the return of the memorandums of appeal to the learned Advocates for the appellants who have appeared before us. We agree to this suggestion and we accordingly order that these appeals be allowed and the orders of the Chief Judge in the two appeals be discharged and the memorandums of appeals presented to that Court be returned to the learned Advocates for the appellants. In view of the fact that the law as to the proper forum of appeal was unsettled, we direct that the parties will bear their own costs in this Court. Application filed on 7th and 9th March, 1960 respectively. In view of our order passed in the appeals and in view of the fact that it may not be possible to present the memorandums of appeal again to this Court with applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act by the 28th of March, 1960 upto which date the execution of the decree has been stayed, we direct that the execution of the decrees be stayed for a further period of one week, that is, upto the 4th April, 1960.