Order These two Rules, though not heard together, are being dealt with together and disposed of by the same judgment as the points involved in these two Rules are the same. 2. Civil Rule no. 1818 of 1982 is at the instance of the plaintiffs against the order dated April 3, 1982 made by the learned Additional Munsif; Alipore holding that the suit, namely Title Suit no. 129 of 1979 had abated in view of the provisions of S. 19 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981. 3. Civil Rule no. 3851 of 1982 has been obtained by the plaintiff against the order dated September 8, 1982 made by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore in Title Suit no. 180 of 1978 holding that the suit had already abated in view of the provisions of S. 19 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1981). 4. Title suit no. 129 of 1979 was instituted by the petitioners on December 1, 1975 as Title Suit no. 507 of 1975 for eviction of opposite party alleging that the opposite party was the monthly tenant under the petitioners on a monthly rental of Rs.30/- according to English calendar month. The opposite party was a defaulter in payment of rent since January 1975. The other allegation was that the opposite party was liable to be evicted on the grounds of nuisance, annoyance and change of purpose of the tenancy. The opposite party contested the suit by filing written statement. On the application of the opposite party, the opposite party was permitted to pay the sum of Rs.370/- (which was as arrears inclusive of interest) by the ten monthly instalments by order dated November 20, 1978. Therefore, on the application of petitioners under S. 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the opposite party’s defence against delivery of possession was struck out by order dated February 18, 1980. On February 27, 1980 the opposite party filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure prying for extension of time for depositing arrears of rent and for recalling the order dated February 18, 1980. The said application under S. 151 of the C.P. Code was rejected by the learned Munsif by order dated August 19, 1980. Therefore, the suit was decreed ex parte on September 15, 1980. The said application under S. 151 of the C.P. Code was rejected by the learned Munsif by order dated August 19, 1980. Therefore, the suit was decreed ex parte on September 15, 1980. On September 29, 1980 the opposite party filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. (Misc. Case no. 31 of 1980) for setting aside the ex parte decree. During the pendency of the Misc. Case, an application for stay was filed by the opposite party and the petitioners admitted that they were thika tenants and the learned Munsif by order dated February 14, 1981 staved the proceedings in terms of S. 4 of the Act no. 25 of 1978. Subsequently, by order dated April 3, 1982 the learned Munsif held that in view of S. 19 of the Act of 1981 the suit had already abated. The said order has been challenged in the present Rule. 5. The petitioner of Civil Rule no. 3851 of 1982 as plaintiff instituted Title Suit no. 180 of 1978 on April 17, 1978 for eviction of the opposite party on the allegation that the opposite party was a tenant under the petitioner on a monthly rental of Rs.18/- and sweeper charges of 50 paisa per month according to English calendar month. The opposite party was a defaulter in payment of rent since December 1976. The defendant-opposite party appeared and contested the suit. The defendant also filed an application under S. 17(2A)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. By order dated November 17, 1978 further proceeding were stayed under Act 25 of 1978 on the ground that the defendant was a Bharatia under a thika tenant. On June 18, 1982 the petitioner filed an application for vacating the said order dated November 17, 1978 and proceeding with the suit. The learned Munsif after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was a thika tenant and the defendant was a Bharatia under him. Thus, in view of S. 19 of the Act of 1981 the suit has abated. The said order dated September 6, 1982 has been challenged in the present Rule. 6. The learned Advocates for the petitioners have agued that the petitioner are thika tenant and the opposite parties are Bharatias under them. The petitioner instituted the suit for eviction of the opposite parties. The said order dated September 6, 1982 has been challenged in the present Rule. 6. The learned Advocates for the petitioners have agued that the petitioner are thika tenant and the opposite parties are Bharatias under them. The petitioner instituted the suit for eviction of the opposite parties. The said proceedings are not proceedings under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1949). In the circumstances the provisions of S. 19 of the Calcutta Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 are not attracted. The learned courts below thus committed jurisdictional error in holding that the suits had abated. The decision in Mrs. Qaiser Jahan v. Mohammad Yawoob 1982(2) CLJ 143 has been referred to in this connection. It has been held in this decision that S. 19 of the Act of 1981 on its terms refers to proceedings of various nature but all based on the provisions of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949. The learned Advocates have argued that the suits for ejectment of the opposite parties are not proceedings based on the Act of 1949 and thus there is no question of any abatement of the suits. The decision in M/s. Universal Trading Co. v. Prafulla Kumar Sarkar & anr., AIR 1977 Calcutta 94 has also been relied upon by the learned Advocates for the petitioners. It has been held that a Bharatia under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act cannot be regarded as a tenant under the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act vis-à-vis his landlord, the thika tenant or the purchaser of the structures form the thika tenant. It has been further held that a landlord is entitled to a decree if the tenancy has been validly terminated by a notice under the general law. 7. The learned advocates for the opposite parties have argued that the learned courts below were correct in holding that the suits had abated because of S. 19 of the Act of 1981. It has been argued that by S. 4 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Stay of Proceedings (Temporary Provision) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1978) suits and proceedings against the Bharatias were stayed. It is further contended that S. 22 of the Act of 1981 refers to exclusion of the period from the 19th day of July, 1978 to the date of coming into force of the Act of 1981. It is further contended that S. 22 of the Act of 1981 refers to exclusion of the period from the 19th day of July, 1978 to the date of coming into force of the Act of 1981. In such circumstances, S. 19 of the Act of 1981 would be applicable. 8. Section 3 of the Act 1949 mentions the grounds on which a thika tenant by me ejected by his landlord. Section 5 deals with the proceedings for ejectment of the thika tenant by means of application to be made before the Controller in the prescribed manner. According to the Act of 1949 a ‘Bharatia’ as defined in S. 2(1) means any person by whom, or on whose account, rent is payable for any structures or part of a structure erected by a thika tenant in his holding. According to S. 10(2) of the Act of 1949, on the determination of the interest of thika tenant in certain cases when any structure standing on any holding of a thika tenant vests in the landlord under subsection (1) otherwise then as a result of ejectment of the thika tenant from the holding on the ground specified in clause (ii) of sub-s. (1) of S. 3, any Bharatia in possession of such structure or any part thereof, shall without any application being made be entitled to continue in such possession and shall be deemed to be a tenant in respect of such structure or part thereof, as the case may be, within the meaning of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 holding under the landlord on the terms and conditions on which such Bharatia had been holding immediately before such structure vested in the landlord. 9. Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prevent either the landlord or such Bharatia so deemed to be a tenant holding under the landlord, from proceeding under the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, 1956 for fixing the standard rent payable in respect of such structure or part thereof as the case may be. 10. Thus a Bharatia becomes a tenant in respect of the structured under the landlord of the thika tenant in cases mentioned in S. 10(2). 10. Thus a Bharatia becomes a tenant in respect of the structured under the landlord of the thika tenant in cases mentioned in S. 10(2). Section 10A of the Act of 1949 deals with rights of thika tenant to orcet pucca structures Section 10A(3) lays down that no thika tenant shall be entitled to eject a Bharatia from the structure or part thereof in the possession of the Bharatia for the purpose of erecting a pucca structure but if the thika tenant provides temporary alternative accommodation to a Bharatia the thika tenant may obtain from the Bharatia vacant possession of the structure in his possession on condition that immediately on the completion of the pucca structure at a rent which shall in no case exceed by more than twenty-five per centum the rent which the Bharatia was previously paying. 11. The suits instituted by the thika tenant for the eviction of their Bharatias in these two Rule are thus not proceedings within the meaning of S.19 of the Act of 1981. Section 19 of the Act of 1981 read as follows:- “All proceedings including appeals and all proceeding in execution of order passed in proceedings including appeals under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 pending on the 19th day of July, 1978, for the ejectment of thika tenants and Bharatias shall stand abated with effect from the 19th day of July, 1978 as if such proceedings, appeals or execution proceeding had never been made” 12. By S. 3 of the Act of 1978 all applications for ejectment of thika tenants, all appeals from orders made on such application and all proceedings in execution of orders for ejectment of thika tenants under the provisions of the Act of 1949 were stayed for the period during which the Act continued in force. By S. 4, suits and proceedings instituted by thika tenants against Bharatias were stayed. 13. Section 4 of the Act of 1978 lays down that no thika tenant shall, while the said Act continues in force, commence, or continue with, any suit, appeal or proceeding in execution of orders, for ejectment of any Bharatia and all pending suits, appeals or proceedings in execution of orders for ejectment of Bharatia shall remain stayed. 13. Section 4 of the Act of 1978 lays down that no thika tenant shall, while the said Act continues in force, commence, or continue with, any suit, appeal or proceeding in execution of orders, for ejectment of any Bharatia and all pending suits, appeals or proceedings in execution of orders for ejectment of Bharatia shall remain stayed. According to S. 22 of the Act of 1981, in computing the period of limitation prescribed by any law for the appeal from an order or decree made on such application or suit or for the execution of an order or decree for ejectment of a Bharatia, the period from the 19th day of July, 1978 to the date of coming into force of the Act of 1981 shall be excluded. 14. It may be noted that unlike S. 3, S. 4 of the Act of 1978 did not stated that proceedings were to be under the provisions of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949. 15. Section 22 of the Act of 1981 thus excluded the period during which the proceeding against Bharatias were stayed. Had the proceeding against Bharatias abated, there would have been no necessity to exclude the period during which they were stayed. 16. Both the suits were instituted prior to the coming into force the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Stay of Proceedings (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1978. The suits were thus pending when the Act came into force. According to S. 4 of the Act of 1978, the petitioners were not entitled to proceed with the suits for ejectment of the Bharatia and the pending suits for ejectment were remain stayed. According to S. 22 of the Act of 1981, in computing the period of limitation prescribed in any law for the time being in force for ejectment of a Bharatia, the period from the 19th day of July 1978 to the date of coming into force of the Act, of 1981 was to be excluded. 17. In the circumstances, I am of opinion that the provisions of S. 19 of the Act of 1981 are not applicable to the instant cases. There was jurisdictional error on the part of the learned courts below in holding that the suits had abated. The impugned orders are thus liable to be aside. 18. Both the Rules be thus made absolute. There was jurisdictional error on the part of the learned courts below in holding that the suits had abated. The impugned orders are thus liable to be aside. 18. Both the Rules be thus made absolute. The impugned orders are set aside and the learned courts below are directed to proceed in accordance with law. 19. Let the records be sent below forthwith. There will be no order as to costs. 20. On the prayer of the learned Advocates for the opposite parties, let the operation of the order remain stayed for four weeks. Rule made absolute.