It is argued that the Presidency Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to remove the obstruction by the petitioner. I am unable to accept this argument. It is clear Sect. 48 of the Small Cause Courts Act applies the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings under Chapter VII and the language of it is wide enough to include a power to act under O. 21, R. 98, Civil Procedure Code. A similar view was taken in the case reported in Baggiammal v. Appadurai Gramany. To hold otherwise will lead to the extraordinary result that though the Small Cause Court can pass an order in ejectment against a tenant, its order could be defeated by the tenant giving over possession to a third party, a day previous to the date fixed for the ejectment. The Small Cause Court has power to remove any improper obstruction to the carrying out of its own order.
It was next contended that this was not a proper case to direct removal of obstruction, as petitioner claims a title to the property. He has according to his own case no title at present, but only a right to enforce specific performance of a contract, which, it may be mentioned, the respondent denies and he has taken possession from Karim, the respondent's tenant, against whom the order in ejectment was made. The order of the Lower Court removing obstruction was clearly right in the circumstances.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.
S. S.Petition dismissed.