An appeal against a final order passed by the Rent Controller (Civil Judge, Junior Division) under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, as amended in 2005, lies before the appropriate Tribunal and not before the Additional District Judge.

( 1 ) THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : this revisional application as per article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order No. 9 dated 18. 02. 2006 passed by the learned Additional district Judge, Sealdah in connection with R. C. Appeal No. 1 of 2005.

( 2 ) THE fact leading to filing of the said appeal may be summarized thus: -

i) The present Opposite Party filed one application under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 against the present petitioner for recovery of possession after evicting him from the property in question. He also prayed for other ponsequential reliefs. The said application was registered as ejectment application no. 59 of 2004 before the Court of additional Rent Controller at sealdah which was presided over by learned additional Civil Judge, junior Division. The said suit was filed on the ground of default and subletting.

ii) The present petitioner contested the said proceeding by filing written objection wherein he denied all the allegations contained in the said application.

iii) By order dated 20. 4. 2005 the said ejectment application was allowed and the Presiding Officer directed the present petitioner to vacate the suit premises and hand over possession to the landlord who is opposite Party in this case.

iv) The tenant preferred appeal being Rent control Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the learned Additional District judge at Sealdah. The tenant also filed one application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. v) By the order impugned the learned Additional district Judge, Sealdah returned the memorandum of appeal to the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the tenant appellant for filing the same before the appropriate forum on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the said appeal.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order of the learned Additional District judge, the tenant petitioner preferred this revisional application.

( 4 ) MR. Bidyut Banerjee, learned Senior advocate for the petitioner tenant challenged the order on the ground that the appellate Court mis-interpreted the statute and passed the impugned order by which the memorandum of appeal was returned to the filing Lawyer. Mr. Banerjee contended further that the law is very clear in this regard. It was his submission that Section 43 of the New Act does not bar filing of appeal before the additional District Judge at Sealdah.

( 5 ) MR. Banerjee contended further that the learned additional District Judge, Sealdah had the power to entertain appeal under the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act as per administrative order passed by the learned District Judge, Alipur.

( 6 ) MR. Banerjee contended further that it was error on the part of the learned Additional District Judge to return the memorandum of appeal as he had the power to entertain the said appeal. It was the further contention of Mr. Banerjee that a tenant against whom an ejectment order has been passed cannot be remediless, if it is found that the order impugned was passed by the learned civil Judge, Junior Division in the disguise of Rent Controller. In other words, it was the contention of Mr. Banerjee that the remedy was by filing an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge at sealdah and that option was taken by the defendant/tenant.

( 7 ) THE said pleas were strongly opposed by mr. Bagchi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Opposite party. It was contended on behalf of the opposite Party that the learned Additional district Judge rightly passed the impugned order by which the memorandum of appeal was directed to be returned to the filing Lawyer so that the same can be filed before the appropriate forum.

( 8 ) HE drew the attention of the Court to the fact that the order was passed by the learned Rent Controller on 20. 04. 2005 by which the application for recovery of khas possession by the landlord was allowed. He further drew the attention of the Court to the lat