What was the core question in this case?

Whether “decree for recovery of possession” in Section 18(1) covers an “order for possession” made under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.

Did the Supreme Court treat decree and order as the same?

No. The Court held they are different. A decree formally adjudicates rights; an order under small cause procedure is not the same.

Does Section 18(1) apply to Small Cause Court possession orders?

No. Section 18(1) applies to decrees under the Rent Acts, not to possession orders under Section 43 of the Small Cause Courts Act.

Can marginal notes change clear statutory language?

No. If the section’s words are clear, marginal notes cannot control or alter the meaning.

What interpretive rule did the Court apply?

Strict reading of the statute. Courts do not assume drafting mistakes or rewrite the law where the text is clear.

Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar and Ors

Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar and Ors. (1953)

West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 — Section 18(1), “decree for possession” vs Small Cause Court order.

Supreme Court of India 1953 Bench: SC AIR 1953 SC 148 Rent Control ~6 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • India • Published: November 1, 2025

Quick Summary

The case asked if “decree for recovery of possession” in Section 18(1) of the 1950 West Bengal Rent Act also covers a Small Cause Court possession order. The Supreme Court said no. A decree and an order are different things. Section 18(1) helps only decrees under the rent law—not small cause court orders.

CASE_TITLE: Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar and Ors. (1953) PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 18(1), decree for possession, Small Cause Court order, strict interpretation SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: marginal note, West Bengal Rent Control 1950, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act 1882 PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-11-01 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India Slug: nalinakhya-bysack-v-shyam-sunder-haldar-and-ors

```

Issues

Does “decree for recovery of possession” in S.18(1) include an order for possession under Chapter VII, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882?
Does S.18(1) apply to orders under Section 43 of the 1882 Act, despite the decree–order distinction?

Rules

Courts follow the clear words of the statute; they do not assume drafting mistakes or fix them.
Marginal notes cannot control or change the plain meaning of the section.
Decree and order are distinct; a decree is a formal adjudication of rights.

Facts (Timeline)

Tenancy & Arrears: Premises at 6 Roy Began Street, Calcutta. Rent ₹25/month. Landlord asked tenants to vacate for non-payment.

1 Jun 1949: Eviction case filed under Presidency Small Cause Courts Act; tenants denied arrears/termination.

27 Feb 1950: Ex parte hearing; order for possession passed for delivery on 3 May 1950.

31 Mar 1950: New West Bengal Rent Control Act came into force; tenants sought relief under S.18.

4 Jul 1950: On payment of arrears + interest, trial court vacated the possession order.

9 Apr 1951: High Court dismissed landlord’s challenge; landlord appealed to the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Appellant (Landlord)

S.18(1) names a decree, not a small cause court order.
Court cannot stretch clear words or treat marginal note as controlling.

Respondents (Tenants)

Relief under S.18(1) should protect them from eviction despite label “order”.
Urged a broad reading to match the section’s perceived purpose.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. Section 18(1) does not apply to orders for possession under Section 43 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.

“Decree” and “order” are distinct. Where the text is clear, courts will not treat them as the same, nor will they use a marginal note to change the meaning.

Ratio

Text rules: Clear statutory words control; no judicial rewriting.
Notes don’t govern: Marginal notes cannot override the section’s language.
Different instruments: A decree ≠ a small cause court order.

Why It Matters

The ruling draws a clean line between rent-control decrees and summary possession orders. It guides when tenants can seek S.18 protection and keeps interpretation text-faithful.

Key Takeaways

S.18(1) covers decrees—not small cause court orders.
Plain meaning prevails over marginal notes.
Courts avoid adding words or fixing supposed drafting errors.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Decree ≠ Order — Text Wins” (D-O-T)

Define the instrument: Is it a decree or an order?
Obey the words: Read S.18(1) as written.
Trim the noise: Marginal note cannot expand scope.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Does S.18(1) include Small Cause Court possession orders?	Strict text; decree ≠ order; marginal note cannot change text.	Order passed under S.43 of 1882 Act is not a decree under rent law.	No. S.18(1) applies only to decrees; appeal allowed.