HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J.
Md. Jamil Akhter - Appellant
Versus
Abdul Majid - Respondent
Decided on : Aug 03, 2010
Jurisdiction - Eviction Suit - Interpretation of West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the defendant on termination of his licence. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Trial Judge after the promulgation of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Judge rejected the defendant's application, holding that the suit for eviction of a licensee is maintainable before the Civil Court and not barred by the provisions of the Act. The High Court upheld the Trial Judge's decision, finding no illegality in the impugned order.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Trial Judge after the promulgation of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit for eviction of a licensee by the licensor is not barred by the provisions of the Act, specifically Section 8 sub-section (3) and Section 21, and is maintainable before the Civil Court.
Final Decision: The revisional application was rejected, and the present suit for eviction was deemed maintainable before the Civil Court.
1. THE judgment of the Court was as follows: THE plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the defendant on termination of his licence. THE defendant is contesting the said suit by filing written statement. In such a suit, the defendant filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Judge to try the instant suit after the promulgation of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001. (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001.
2. THE learned Trial Judge rejected the defendant's said application by holding inter alia that the suit for eviction of a licensee is neither hit by Section 8 sub-section (3) nor hit by Section 21 of the said Act. THE learned Trial Judge, thus, held that the suit is very much maintainable before the Civil Court. Accordingly, the petitioner's application was rejected by the learned Trial Judge by the order being No. 45 dated 7th May, 2010.
The propriety of the said order is under challenge in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the defendant/petitioner.
3. AFTER hearing the learned Advocate for the parties and after considering the materials-on-record, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order as it is rightly held by the learned Trial Judge that the suit for eviction of a licensee by the licensor is not hit either under Section 8 sub-section (3) or under Section 21 of the said Act, as both the aforesaid provisions created a bar in maintaining a suit between the thika tenant and bharatia before the Civil Court without reference to the suit for eviction of a licensee by the licensor. As such, the present suit, in my view, is maintainable before the Civil Court.
4. THE revisional application, thus, stands rejected. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocate for both parties as early as possible.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.