Judgment 1. THE opposite party filed an application under Section 29b of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for eviction of the present petitioner and the pro forma opposite party, which was numbered as Ejectment Case No. 7 of 1979 before the Rent Controller, Calcutta. The said proceeding ended in an order for eviction, dated 19th of April, 1993. The present Revisional application is directed against the said order. 2. THE opposite party, after having entered appearance, raised a preliminary objection, asking us to resolve, upon adjudication, a question of jurisdiction namely, whether an application under Section 29b (9) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is entertain able by a Division Bench or a Single Bench. Secondly, whether a Revisional application, arising out of Rent Controller's order, is to be valued and, if so, the mode and manner thereof. According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury without resolving these questions, it may be a futile exercise on the part of the Court to go into the merits of other contentions involved in the present case. 3. BOTH Mr. Dasgupta and Mr. Roy Chowdhury, appearing for the contesting parties, have made elaborate submissions by reference to judicial pronouncements and statutory provisions and Rules in vogue in this Court, in support of their respective contentions. 4. UPON consideration of such submissions, it appears to us that the exact wordings of Section 29b of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act as also other provisions empowering the Rent Controller to function and Rule 1 Chapter II, Part I of the Appellate Side Rules of this Court are required to be carefully construed. Section 29b of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, which is embodied in Chapter VIA of the said Act, came into operation in 1976. The said section expressly takes away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court of entertaining applications for recovery of possession by the class of landlords specified in the said section and mandatorily directs that such applications will lie before the Rent Controller. The said section expressly takes away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court of entertaining applications for recovery of possession by the class of landlords specified in the said section and mandatorily directs that such applications will lie before the Rent Controller. Sub-section (8) of the said section vests in the controller, power to follow the procedure of a Court of Small Causes, while holding an enquiry in a proceeding to which said Chapter VI A applies, and Sub-section (9) bars an appeal or a Second Appeal against an order for recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller under the said section but, by its proviso, vests power in this Court to satisfy itself about the legality of the order for recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller under the said section but, by its proviso, vests power in this Court to satisfy itself about the legality of the order made by the Controller by reference to the records and also pass necessary orders as this Court may think fit. Sub-section (10) of the said section indicates that the power, which this Court intends to exercise, as above, is revisional power. At this stage, it is necessary to note that the functionings of the Controller have been permitted, on different occasions, by the provisions of the said Act, for example, for fixation of fair rent under Section 8; for increase of fair rent under Section 9; for penalizing for disturbances of easements, etc. under Section 31 and for granting permission for repairs and, for taking measures for the maintenance of essential services under Section 34. In terms of Section 29, these orders of the Controller have been made appealable to specified Civil Court. 5. THE legislature intended to impart, a distinction to the order passed by the Controller under Section 29b of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act vis-a-vis other types of orders, which the Controller can pass under other provisions of the said Act as mentioned above. This legislative intent is clear by conferment of specific power of revision in terms of Section 29b (9) proviso and barring of appeals and second appeals from orders under Sub-section 8 of the said Section. This legislative intent is clear by conferment of specific power of revision in terms of Section 29b (9) proviso and barring of appeals and second appeals from orders under Sub-section 8 of the said Section. The factual position of the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act not having been made applicable to the orders under Section 29b (9) of the above act, confirms the said legislative intent. We have already Indicated that in the schedule to Par1, Chapter 1, Rule 1 of the Appellate Side Rules, though the revisions arising out of orders under Section 29 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act have been specifically referred to or revisions under Section 25 of the Provincial Small causes courts Act have been specifically mentioned and applications valued at below Rs.5,000/- have been made amenable to the jurisdiction of the Single Bench, nothing has been mentioned as regards revisional applications, preferred or originating in terms of Section 29b(9). The distinction on the basis of valuation, therefore, in our view, is not meant to be applicable to such revisional applications under Section 29b (9) of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. We, therefore, hold that all such revisional applications under Section 29b9 (9) have to be moved before a Division Bench. 6. REGARDING the other point about necessity of a valuation and the mode and manner thereof, a careful reading of relevant Sections indicate that in no case under the aforesaid Act, an application entertain able by the Rent Controller requires to be valued but notwithstanding such position this Court in the case of Chandmull Agarwal vs. Lachmi Narayan Dalmia reported in AIR, 1954, Calcutta, P-77 has laid down that revisional applications arising out of orders passed by the Rent Controller be valued on analogy of a suit in terms of Section 7 (11) of the Court Fees Act. The revisional application under Section 29b (9), which came into operation later, in our view, should also be valued following the same principle as laid down by the Division Bench, though such valuation, as the Rules stand at present, may not be relevant and necessary for fixing up the jurisdiction of the Revisional Count. The revisional application under Section 29b (9), which came into operation later, in our view, should also be valued following the same principle as laid down by the Division Bench, though such valuation, as the Rules stand at present, may not be relevant and necessary for fixing up the jurisdiction of the Revisional Count. We are not prepared to hold, in view of the ratio propounded by that Division Bench, that such revisional applications under Section 29b (9 are incapable of valuation. Before parting with the case, we would like to draw the attention of the learned Chief Justice to the inconsistent position which we have already pointed out and we expect that he will take appropriate steps for consideration of such position by the Full Court and if necessary, for affecting amendments to the Rules. 7. THE preliminary point is thus decided. Now, the appropriate Bench may consider other contentions to be raised by the parties according to law and on merit. This application need not be treated as heard in part by this Bench. There will be no order as to costs. The order delivered by us today, will be brought to the notice of the learned Chief Justice expeditiously.