A suit for land is a suit which primarily and substantially seeks an adjudication upon title to immovable property or determination of any right or interest therein, and in such a suit, the court cannot assume jurisdiction only on the ground of residence of the defendant within the jurisdiction when the entire land or immovable property is situate outside the jurisdiction.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by the defendant 1 for an order, inter alia, that the plaint filed in this suit be taken off the file and be rejected; and leave granted under Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent be revoked.

( 2 ) IN or about December, 1983 the plaintiff instituted this suit in this Court praying, inter alia, (a) Leave under Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent; (b) Declaration that the plaintiff is the monthly tenant of Flat No. 51 of premises No. 6, Mayfair Road, Calcutta more fully described in a schedule annexed to the plaint; (c) perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and/or their servants, agents, workmen, employees or any other person or persons claiming through the defendants from in any way disturbing or obstructing or doing any act which will in any way interfere with the peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the said Flat No. 51 at premises No. 6, Mayfair Road, Calcutta, (d) perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and/or their servants, agents, workmen, employees or any other person or persons claiming through the defendant from interfering with right of ingress to and egress from the said flat by the plaintiff and its servants and agents; (e) Receiver; (f) Injunction; (g) Costs and (h) further or other reliefs.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff's case as made out in the plaint is shortly this. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the first defendant for tenancy in respect of flat No. 51 at premises No. 6 Mayfair Road, Calcutta at a monthly rent of Rs. 1300/ -. The said agreement was entered into in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff was the tenant of the flat No. 51 which was being used as Office-cum-Guest House. At the request of the first defendant the plaintiff had been paying the rent of Rs. 1300/- per month to the second defendant M/s. Vishnu Oil Company with effect from May, 1977 and rent receipts thereof were granted by the second defendant. The second defendant duly accepted the rent, up to and including the month of March, 1981 and on various pretexts the defendants did not accept rent from April, 1981.

( 4 ) THE allegation of the plaintiff as disclosed in the plaint is that the defendants are wrongfully or illegally threatening to oust the plaintiff from the possession of the said flat. Further, the defendants are threatening to invade or invading the plaintiff's right to enjoyment.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff prays for leave under Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent on the basis that the defendants reside and the tenancy agreement in respect of the said flat No. 51, Mayfair Road was entered into within the jurisdiction of this Court.

( 6 ) IN this application the petitioner alleges that the reliefs claimed in this suit wholly relate to and affect the title and possession of the said premises which is admittedly situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court. In this suit the plaintiff has asked for determination of right relating to the title or interest of the plaintiff in the said flat as well as possession, control and management relating to or concerning the said flat. Therefore, this suit is a suit for land which involves determination of questions relating to right, title, interest and possession of land. As such, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain, try or determine the suit nor this Court has any jurisdiction to grant leave under Cl. 12 of Letters Patent in a suit relating to or concerning the said flat, in the said premises which is admittedly situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court. It is the further contention of the petitioner that in a suit for land if any part of such land situate within local limits of this Court, then only the question of granting leave under Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent would arise and in no other case. It is wholly irrelevant whether any part of the alleged cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court or not.

( 7 ) THE petitioner, therefore, prays that leav