The Thika Controller does not have the power to adjudicate whether a person is a thika tenant or not, as per the provisions of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981.

This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an applicant before the Thika Controller and is directed against order dated August S. 1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, 4th Court. Howrah in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 97 of 1990 thereby affirming those dated March 19, 1990 passed by the Thika Controller in G.R. Case No. 10/1982-83.

2. The present petitioners filed an application before the Thika Controller for recording their names as thika tenant in respect of the disputed property. The said application gave rise to the aforesaid G.R. Case No. 10 of 1982-83. The opposite party contested the said claim of the present petitioners and ultimately by order dated March 19, 1990 the Thika Controller found that the petitioners are not the thika tenant in respect of the property and dismissed their application.

3. Being dissatisfied the petitioners preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 97 of 1990 before the District Judge, Howrah which was ultimately heard by the Additional District Judge 4th Court and the learned Additional District Judge by order dated August 5, 1992 affirmed the said order passed by the Thika Controller.

4. Being dissatisfied the petitioners have preferred the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners frankly conceded that under the provision of Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 the Thika Controller is not vested with the power to adjudication whether a person is a thika tenant or not. Mr. Mukherjee submits that under wrong instruction his clients preferred such application. The grievance of Mr. Mukherjee is that the learned Thika Controller as well as the First Appellant Court ought not to have dismissed the application on merit but ought to have turned down the same on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 does not dispute the aforesaid submission of Mr. Mukherjee. After hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties and after going thought the provisions contained in Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981, I find substance in the contention of Mr. Mukherjee. The aforesaid Act does not give any power to the Thika Controller to adjudicate whether a person is a thika tenant or not. Thus in the aforesaid circumstances the Thika Controller ought to have summarily dismissed Mr. Mukherjee’s clients application for recoding their names as thika tenants. Although I affirm the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Thika Controller that the application should be rejected, I am not at one with him that it should be dismissed on merit, Thus the finding of the learned tribunal below and the Additional District Judge are set aside and the application filed by the petitioner before Thika Controller is dismissed as not maintainable. With the above observation this revisional application is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.