A civil court has no jurisdiction to decide any question or determine any matter which is required to be decided or dealt with by the Thika Controller or any other authority specified in the West Bengal Thika Tenancy Act, 2001.

Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.:

In C.O. No. 3992 of 2009

Doubting the correctness of the Order No. 18 dated 14.12.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court at Sealdah, in Title Suit No. 397 of 2008, in connection with the application under Order VII Rule 11 the present petitioner/defendant has filed this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Grounds ventilated in this revisional application is such that the learned Trial Court has not considered (1) Section 21 of West Bengal Thika Tenancy Act, 2001, wherein the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is ousted, (2) that the opposite party challenged the deed of conveyance executed by the erstwhile owner in favour of the present petitioner and for that the opposite party is required to pay the Court fees on the value of the deed of conveyance, and (3) that the said deed was challenged on the ground of thika tenancy right and as such the issues involved in the suit was in regard to West Bengal Thika Tenancy Act and accordingly the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

3. According to the defendant/petitioner, Trial Court below had not at all considered his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code in its proper perspectives.

4. To come to a finding the factual aspect of this case is required to be revisited. The plaintiff/opposite parties specific case is such that the suit property originally belonged to Late Kamal Kumar Ruia and Nirmal Kumar Ruia (Proforma Defendant Nos. 4) who were in occupation of the suit property and they got the lease from one Sambhu Nath Pyne by a registered deed of lease duly executed and registered on 19.02.1971 with effect from 1st March, 1971. In terms of the said lease the said Kamal Kumar Ruia and Nirmal Kumar Ruia began to pay the monthly ground rent at the rate of Rs.400 per month payable according to the English Calendar month and the said Sambhu Nath Pyne began to issue rent receipt after accepting the rent for the land. On the strength of the said lease deed Kamal Kumar Ruia since deceased and Nirmal Kumar Ruia (Proforma Defendant No. 4) erected shed, office, godown, staff-quarters etc. on the said leased out land and began to run a business therein, after taking the trade licence. It is specifically averred by the plaintiff at Para 5 that after promalgamation of Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1981, the status of the said Kamal Kumar Ruia since deceased and Nirmal Kumar Ruia became changed and the present plaintiff/opposite party has been in possession continuously. While the plaintiffs were in exclusive possession of the suit property, the present petitioner/defendant Nos. 2 and 3 entered into an agreement for sale of suit property with the heirs of Sambhu Nath Pyne in 2006 and asked the plaintiffs to quit and vacate the suit property. The present plaintiff/opposite party challenged the said deed. In the month of November, 2008 the present petitioner/defendant No. 1 asked the plaintiff to quit the suit property as they have purchased the schedule property from the heirs of Sambhu Nath Pyne i.e. defendant Nos. 2 and 3.

5. Challenging the said claim of the defendant/petitioner, the plaintiff/opposite party had filed the suit bearing No. 397 of 2008. The opposite party/plaintiff have prayed for a declaration that the plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the suit property on the basis of the lease deed dated 19.02.1971, a decree for declaration that the plaintiff/opposite party shall not be evicted by the defendant No. 1 without any due process of law and that a declaration that the deed of conveyance of Defendant No. 1 is void and no title has been passed by way of such deed of conveyance. They have also prayed for a declaration of permanent injunction so that the petitioner/defendant cannot disturb their peaceful possession.

6. At the very outset, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/defendant contended that Kamal Kumar Ruia and Nirmal Kumar Ru