JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioner no. 1 has claimed that in the name of his wife, the petitioner no. 2, he owns Premises no. 198, Harish Mukherjee' Road (since re-numbered as No. 186b Harish mukherjee Road. P. S. Bhowanipore, Calcutta. At the material point of time the petitioner no. 1 was employed as an Assistant Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Calcutta and occupied as his residence government Quarter No. 2, Tiljala Road, P. S. Beniapukur which was alloted to him by his employer, the State of West Bengal. The opposite parties to these Rules are alleged to be described as monthly tenants in respect of different portions of Premises No. 136b, Harish Mukherjee road. 2. ON 23rd November, 19s2 the petitioner No. 1 was served with a Memo issued by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta stating since you are retiring from service on superannuation shortly, you are required to vacate the Government quarters No, 2, Tiljala Road, Calcutta and move to your own house at 186, Harish Mukherjee Road. On 23rd december, 1982 a learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner no. 2 issued notices to different tenants of Premises No. 186 Harish Mukherjee road puporting to determine their respective tenancies on the expiry of the month of January, 1983. The learned advocate inter-alia stated in the said notices that the husband of the present petitioner, no. 2, who had been occupying a government quarter was due to retire from service and that the premises were reasonably required for occupation of the landlord and her family. The notices mentioned that in case they failed to vacate, ejectment suits would be instituted against them. On 7th March, 1983 the petitioners filed before the Rent controller, Calcutta applications under section 29b (1) of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 for recovery of possession of the respective premises occupied by the opposite parties on the grounds specified in clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act. By his order dated 13th December, 1984 the Rent Controller, calcutta dismissed the said application of the petitioners on the ground that the applications under section 291b of 'the said Act could not be entertained as the applicant no. 1 had retired from government service before the date of filing of the said applications. By his order dated 13th December, 1984 the Rent Controller, calcutta dismissed the said application of the petitioners on the ground that the applications under section 291b of 'the said Act could not be entertained as the applicant no. 1 had retired from government service before the date of filing of the said applications. being aggrieved, by the said order, the petitioners moved this court in revision and obtained the present Rules. 3. THE short point for determination is whether or not the Rent controller has any jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 29b of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 by a landlord who had ceased to be a government employee before the date of the presentation of his application under the said section. 4. SECTION 29b of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 has provided for a special procedure for disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement made by the class of landlords mentioned in the said section. The said Section creates a special forum for entertaining applications. The civil courts cannot entertain the applications under section 29b of the said Act and the same are to be dealt with by the Rent Controller. Secondly, the said section 29b lays down an abridged procedure for disposal of application. Section 29b ousts civil court's jurisdiction to entertain application for eviction on the ground of jurisdiction to requirement only by a certain class of landlords. It is well-settled principle of law that exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court is not to be readily inferred and such exclusion must be nither explicitly expressed or clearly implied. A provision of law which ousts the jurisdiction of civil court ought to be strictly construed. It is well-settled principle of law that exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court is not to be readily inferred and such exclusion must be nither explicitly expressed or clearly implied. A provision of law which ousts the jurisdiction of civil court ought to be strictly construed. Section 29b of the Act has very categorically specified the particular class of applications for eviction on the ground of bona- fide requirement shall be dealt with by the Rent Controller and not by the civil court, in order to apply tinder section 29b of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act, a landlord ought to satisfy the following conditions : (a) he is a government employee, (b) he had been occupying a government premises as his residence, (c) by a general or special order the government has asked him to vacate his said residential accommodation on the ground that he owns a residential accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependant child. We respectfully agree with the observations of the Division Bench in the case of Dr. Mahendra Chandra Bhattacharjee v. Abani Bhusan bhattacharjee and Anr., AIR 1985 Cal. 108 , that in order to avail of the provisions of section 29b of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act, 1956, the landlord must fulfil all the elements prescribed by the said provision. In the case of Dr. Mahendra Chandra Bhattacharjee v. Abani Bhusan Bhattacharjee and Anr. (supra), the question was whether the landlord had been asked to vacate the residential accommodation allotted to him by the government on the ground that he owned a residential accommodation. In the case before us, the question is whether the petitioner no. 1 satisfies the first condition, that is, whether at the relevant time he was a landlord being a government employee'. At the time the application under section 29b of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act is to be entertained or dealt with, the petitioner must be an eligible person, that is, a 'landlord being a government employee'. The expressions 'entertain and 'dealt with' may mean to receive or they may mean" to deal with judicially or decide on merits. Before the presentation of his application under section 29b of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the petitioner was no longer a government employee. The expressions 'entertain and 'dealt with' may mean to receive or they may mean" to deal with judicially or decide on merits. Before the presentation of his application under section 29b of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the petitioner was no longer a government employee. In case his applications were to be heard on merits, that is, to be dealt with juridicially, he would certainly be no. longer a government employee. Therefore, neither at the date the Rent Controller received his applications nor on any subsequent date the petitioner could claim to be a government employee- As regards eligibility to apply under section 29b (1) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, a distinction has been made between the landlords who are government employees and landlords who are or have retired as member of the Naval, Military or Air Force of the Union of India and parents of members of the said Forces. Sub-section (1)of section 29b of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 has expressly conferred right to have benefits of special procedure also upon the landlords who have retired or would retire within a period of less than one year as a member of the Naval, Military or Air Force of the Union of India or who are parents or the wife of such members. The benefits of availing of the special procedure under section 29b of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1 956 have not been extended to other class of government employees who have already retired before the date of his application for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement is to be entertained by the Rent Controller. 5. WE have perused the judgment of N. G. Chaudhuri, 3. in the case of Arun Kumar Sen v. Satindra Nath Goswami 87 CWN 956. We agree with learned judge that unless at the time of the making of the application under section 29b of the Act the landlord is a government employee, the civil court's jurisdiction is. entertain. such an application would not be taken away and the Rent Controller shall have no jurisdiction to deal with the, same. In subsection (1) of section 29b of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act the use of the expression 'any application by a landlord being a government employee' is significant. entertain. such an application would not be taken away and the Rent Controller shall have no jurisdiction to deal with the, same. In subsection (1) of section 29b of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act the use of the expression 'any application by a landlord being a government employee' is significant. The learned rent Controller shall deal with an application only when the landlord is a government employee who has been required by his employer to vacate a residential premises allotted by the employer on the ground that he owns a residential accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child. 6. SECTION 14a of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is not in pari ateria with section 29b of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Therefore, reported decisions of the Supreme Court hereinafter mentioned are, not relevant for interpreting section 29b of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act. In section 14a of the Delhi Act the expression 'landlord' is not qualified by the expression 'being a government employee' in the manner done in section 29b (l) of the West Bengal Act. Therefore, under section 14a every person who is in occupation of any residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government or any local authority is required by that Government that authority to vacate on the ground that the occupant owned in the Union Territory of Delhi a residential accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependant child. He would be entitled to apply for recovery of immediate possession of the premises let out to his own tenant. Secondly, under section 14a of the Delhi Act such' right to recover possession accrues on and from, the date of the order by the Government or the authority to vacate the residential accommodation allotted to him. Immediately upon making of an order by the government or by the authority to vacate, the occupier would have a vested right to recover possession of the premises let out to his own tenant. Immediately upon making of an order by the government or by the authority to vacate, the occupier would have a vested right to recover possession of the premises let out to his own tenant. Therefore, unlike section 29b right to recover immediate possession under section 14a is not limited or confined to Government employees but to every person in occupation of any residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government or any local authority and who is required by any order to vacate such allotted premises' on the ground that he owned a residential accommodation in the Union Territory of Delhi. Section 14a creates a. vested right on and from the date of making of such order. Section 29b provides special procedure for disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement filed only by a landlord who is a government employee and who has been ordered to vacate any residential premises allotted to him by his employer, i. e., the Government. Section 29b does not mention that such a landlord shall have a vested right to avail of such special procedure on and from the date of the passing of the eviction order passed by the Government against him. Mr. A. P. Chatterjee, learned advocate on behalf of the petitioners, himself submitted that none has any vested right to a particular procedure. Section 29b (i)of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is a part not of substantive but of adjective law. As already stated unlike section 14a of the Delhi rent Control Act, 1958. section 29p of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, 1956 bars civil court's jurisdiction to entertain an application for recovery of possession on the ground of reasonable requirement by a landlord only when he is a government employee who has been asked by his employer to vacate a government premises on the ground that he ownes a residential premises. Unless such a landlord is a government servants who has been required to vacate government premises on the aforesaid ground, the learned Rent Controller cannot deal with his application under section 29b of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, 1956. Unless such a landlord is a government servants who has been required to vacate government premises on the aforesaid ground, the learned Rent Controller cannot deal with his application under section 29b of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, 1956. The ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Shri Nihal chand v. Shri Kalyani Chand Jain, AIR 1978 SC 259 , would be inapplicable to the present case before us because, as already stated, section 14a of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956, are not in pari materia. It is significant that in paragraph 9 of his judgment in Shri Nihal Chand v. Shri Kalyan Chand Jain (supra), Tulzapukar, J. had recognised that there is some force in the view taken by the Delhi High Court that provisions of section i4a (l) was not intended for government servants who had retired from service or who has been transferred outside delhi and he said provision was intended for the benefit of such landlords who continue in Government service and who are required to vacate Government accommodation. The Supreme Court found on facts that the appellant of the said case satisfied 'all the conditions of section 14 A of the Delhi Rent Control Act and also held that when the cause of action arose or the right to evict his tenant accrued to him, the appellant landlord was very much in service. We have already pointed out the distinctions between the provisions of section 14a of the Delhi Rent Control Act and section 29b of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act. Sri Nihal Chand v. Shri Kalyan Chand Jain (supra) was followed by the Supreme Court in the case of B. N. Muttoo v. Dr. T. K. Nandi, A. I. R. . 1979 S. C. 460. In B. N. Muttoo v. Dr. T. K. Nandi, (supra), the appellant landlord had filed suit for eviction on the same day (9th of December, 1975) on which he was. served with a general notice by the Government requiring all government servants to vacate the accommodation allotted to them in case they owned houses in Delhi and New (Delhi. The learned Rent Controller refused to grant leave to the tenant and decreed the suit. The High court allowed the revision petition of the tenant. The landlord appealed to the Supreme Court. Kailasam, 2. The learned Rent Controller refused to grant leave to the tenant and decreed the suit. The High court allowed the revision petition of the tenant. The landlord appealed to the Supreme Court. Kailasam, 2. in paragraph (11) of his judgment in B. N. Muttoo v. Dr. T. K. Nandi (supra) had, inter alia observed that a right to recover immediate possession of premises accrues to persons who satisfy the two conditions mentioned in section 14a (1)of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Kailasam, 3. pointed out that section 14a did not require that the person who is in occupation of the premises allotted by the government should be a government servant. It was only necessary that the person is required by the government by the authority to vacate an accommodation imposing certain consequence in the event of his not vacating. Kailasam, J. quoted from the decision of Sri Nihal Chand v. Shri Kalyan Chand Jain (supra)and over-ruled the High Court's view on the ground that section 14a did not restrict the right to recover possession to government servants alone. 7. THE Supreme Court in the case of Anumapa Sengupta and Others v. Deb Kumar Sen Sarma and others, A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 25, held inter alia that a petition under section 29b of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act by government employee is riot lost by reason of the employee retiring from service during the pendency of the said petition. Venkataramiah, J. in the said case, inter alia, observed that a petition which is duly filed could not be defeated on the ground that the government employee has retired subsequently. In the instant case, the application under section 29 B by the present petitioner No. 1 cannot be considered to have been duly filed inasmuch as on the date of the presentation of the application he was no longer a government employee and, therefore, civil court's jurisdiction to entertain his claim for recovery of possession under section i'3 (l) (ff) of the West Bengal Premises tenantry Act was not barred. Once an application or suit is instituted, the parties such cause are entitled to obtain adjudication according to law which stood on the date of the commencement of the suit or the application. Once an application or suit is instituted, the parties such cause are entitled to obtain adjudication according to law which stood on the date of the commencement of the suit or the application. Right to obtain relief according to summary procedure prescribed by section 29b of the West -Bengal Premises Tenancy act cannot be denied to one who was still a government employee at the date of filing an application only because the Rent Controller before whom an application is filed is unable to disposed it of before the applicant retired from service. If such a view be taken, same would cause prejudice to the applicant by reason of the said authority's inability to decide promptly and in accordance with law. 8. WE are however, unable to accept the submission of Mr. Chatterjee that in case a government employee retired even before he presents before the learned Rent Controller any application under section 14 A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, he would be entitled to avail of the said summary procedure. In view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, A. I. R. 1979 s. C. 1745, we are to accept as correct] the submission of Mr. Chatterjee learned advocate for the petitioner, that a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was necessary. to determine the tenancies of the tenants of the petitioners and therefore upon expiry of the periods specified by the said notices, the causes of action for filing the instant applications under section 29b of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act had arisen. According to Mr. Chatterjee,' on and from the said dates the petitioner had vested right to' apply under section 29b of the said Act. We need! not also deal with the submission of Mr. Chatterjee that after service of such notices, the apposite parties had become statutory tenants no longer enjoying protection under the Rent Control Legislation. Judicial pronouncements on the contrary are so numerous, it is unnecessary to cite them for over-ruling this contention. We have come to the conclusion that the learned Rent Controller did not commit any error of jurisdiction by holding that the applications filed by the petitioners were not entertainable under section 29b of toe Act. Judicial pronouncements on the contrary are so numerous, it is unnecessary to cite them for over-ruling this contention. We have come to the conclusion that the learned Rent Controller did not commit any error of jurisdiction by holding that the applications filed by the petitioners were not entertainable under section 29b of toe Act. Therefore, it is unnecessary to consider further objection for the first time raised by the opposite parties to the effect that the government had directed the petition no. 1 to vacate his residential accommodation not on the ground that he in the name of his wife owned another residential accommodation but on the ground that after superannuation the petition no. 1 ought to vacate his official quarters. We, however, add that when the applications under section 29e of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 were not maintainable, the proper course would be to direct return of the applications under section 29b of the Act without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in a properly constituted suit before the civil court. 9. WE accordingly dispose of these Rules by modifying the order complained of passed by the learned Rent Controller. We direct that the applications under section 29b of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act, 1956 being not entertainable be returned and the said order would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties before the civil court. 10. BEFORE we conclude we observe that it is not necessary for us to decide whether the opposite parties nos. 6 and 7 are jointly tenants with the remaining opposite parties of C. R. No. 353 of 1985. According to Mr. Sen the said O. P. s Nos. 6 and 7 have been already married and they have no subsisting interest in the suit premises. The petitioners does not admit the said contention. Therefore, the said question is left open for adjudication, if necessary, in appropriate proceeding we also add that since the applications under section 29b of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act are to be returned for filing and/or institution of suits in competent court, validity and the service of the notices under section 13 (6) of the Act issued by the petitioners will be decided in future proceedings. It would be, however, not necessary for the petitioners to issue fresh notices under section 13 (6)of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Rule disposed of.