| Appeal No. of this appeal are as follows. This is an appeal by a certificate granted by the High Court at Calcutta from a judgment and decree in Second Appeal passed by that court in January, 1961. On the 18th June 1948, the plaintiff, the appellant before us, instituted Suit No. 292 of 1948 for ejectment of three Persons, namely, Abdul Rahim, Abdul Hamid and Abdul Gaffur, from the property in suit (a parcel of land about 1 cottah 8 chittaks " The section has two provisos one of which laid down that no thika tenant Shall be ejected from his holding on any of the grounds specified in cls. '(iv) and (v) of _. The six grounds mentioned are: (i) failure to pay an arrear of rent due to the landlord in respect of the holding; (ii) failure on the part of the tenant to dispose of the land comprised in the holding in a manner when rendered it unfit for either of the purposes mentioned in cl. (5) of section 2 ( T he could not have done because of the passing of the Act after the filing of his suit. The only qualification was that even if the suit had been filed before the Act but was not disposed of by that date, the landlord had to establish that be was entitled to possession because of any of the grounds mentioned in section 3. It is however 'clear that the benefit of section 28 was available only if the decree or order for the recovery of possession had been made before the date of the commencement of this Act but the tenant had lost possession of such holding had not been recovered from him. He was however not Sub section(1) of section 5 made the Act, as amended by the Ordinance, applicable to all cases pending before a court or a controller. In such a case, if it was found that the person applying was a thika tenant, the court before whom the proceedings were pending had to remit the case to the controller and if the authority before whom was made was a controller, he had to re open the case and pass a new order. If the matter was in appeal, the appellate court had to exercise jurisdiction Section 3 of the Act which cuts down the right of the landlord to recover possession except on the grounds therein specified musi be held to apply to all suits even though filed before 28th February 1949. The language of the section leaves no room for doubt as to this. It expressly states that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, a thika tenant shall be liable to ejectment on ground specified and not otherwise. Before the Act had come into force, the landlord could not possibly know that his suit R. 182 We cannot speculate as to why the legislature thought fit to omit sections 28 and 29 from the Act of 1949. The effect of omission of section 28 has been considered by this Court in Mahadeolal Kanodia vs Administrator General of West Bengal(1) where it was held that a thika tenant against whom proceedings for execution of the decree for eviction were pending and who had applied for relief under section 28 lost the protection of that section as a result of the Amending Act of 1953. There being no provision for transfer of the proceedings of Mr. Bhargava, J. In the result, as the landlord has not established any of the grounds specified in section 3 entitling him to ejectment |