( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision application is directed against the order dated 13. 2. 2006 passed by the learned Vlth Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore in ejectment (RC) Case No. 175 of 2005 whereby and whereunder, while dealing with an application under Section 27 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) he held that it was the Controller alone who was empowered to entertain such an application and therefore, he was not inclined to entertain the same. As a consequence, he directed that the petition under Section 27 (2) of the said Act be returned so that it could be filed before the concerned Controller within the period of limitation.

( 2 ) THE opposite party filed an application for evicting the petitioner on the ground of default and reasonable requirement before the Vlth Additional Rent controller at Alipore where the same was registered as Ejectment Case No. 175 of 2005.

( 3 ) THE petitioner who is the tenant entered appearance and filed an application under Section 7 (1) (a) (b) of the said Act and also filed application under Section 7 (2) pleading protection against eviction. The opposite party, in the capacity of being the owner (Landlord) filed her objection. It is stated that the Ejectment Case is still pending disposal.

( 4 ) IT is further stated that in the aforementioned Ejectment Case No. 175 of 2005 the opposite party had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C. P. C. for an order of injunction restraining the petitioner from creating their party interests and/or from parting with the possession of the property. It appears that an order was passed directing the parties to maintain status quo, but subsequently, on 20. 2. 2006 the interim order was vacated.

( 5 ) THE petitioner has stated that in the meantime, the opposite party illegally stopped supply of water to the tenanted premises which compelled him to file an application under Section 35 of the said Act for restoration of water supply. It appears that by Order dated 5. 1. 2006 the said application was allowed and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to file a report.

( 6 ) WITHOUT going into further details of this case, the bone of contention which appears to be involved in this particular case is the statement of the petitioner to the effect that electricity line connected to the tenanted premises was also disconnected and when the petitioner attempted to reconnect the same, the opposite party and her family members "illegally obstructed and man-handled" the Electrician through whom the petitioner was attempting to restore the electricity connection. It is further stated and/or alleged that the opposite party threatened the petitioner that she would not allow Electricity to be restored. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner informed the Officer-on-Duty tollyganj Police Station and on the next date i. e. 20. 1. 2006, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the said Police Station.

( 7 ) THEREAFTER on 30. 1. 2006 the petitioner filed an application under Section 27 (2) of the said Act before the Vlth Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipore and prayed for a direction upon the opposite party to restore the electricity connection to the tenanted premises and also prayed for compensation to the extent of rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) for disconnecting the electricity supply without prior permission of the Court where the main matter was pending. It appears that an objection was filed against the aforementioned application and on 13. 2. 2006 the same was taken up for hearing and after hearing the parties, the impugned order was passed.

( 8 ) BEFORE proceeding to deal with the matter, it is necessary to take note of the fact that Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1957 has been amended by the West Bengal Act No. VI of 2005 by substituting and inserting the words "by the Civil Judge having jurisdiction" in place of "by the controller"

( 9 ) THUS

Click Here to Read the rest of this document