The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of thika property by a thika tenant after the enactment of the Thika Tenancy Acts is void, and the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain suits for eviction between licensors and licensees.

Judgment :

1. The plaintiffs in Title Suit No.30 of 2019, has preferred this revisional application being aggrieved by an order dated November 25, 2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court at Howrah in Misc. Appeal No.90 of 2019, thereby reversing the judgment and order dated March 19, 2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 3rd Court at Howrah in said Title Suit NO.30 of 2019. By the order impugned, the learned Additional District Judge 3rd Court at Howrah allowed Misc. Appeal No.90 of 2019 and set aside the order of the learned trial judge directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of possession, nature and character and also in respect of alienation and transfer of the suit property as on the date, that is, March 19, 2019, till the disposal of the suit, holding the order to be illegal and against the provisions of The West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001(hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The learned lower appellate court came to the finding that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Howrah did not have the jurisdiction to decide the suit in view of the bar under Section 21 of the said Act. According to the learned lower appellate court, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) wrongly acted as an appellate authority against the order of the Thika controller and the appropriate forum for the plaintiff would be the Land Reform and Tenancy Tribunal, West Bengal.

2. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the plaintiffs' case was that one Ali Hussain (since deceased) was the elder brother of the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 and Sahira Begum (since deceased). That Sahira Begum was the mother of the plaintiff Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The said plaintiffs were being absolute owners claiming through Ali Hussain, who died issueless on April 24, 1978. The plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and 3 being his brothers, Jamila Khatoon (since deceased) being the wife, Abeda Khatoon (since Deceased) being the mother and Sahira Begum also known as Sahira Khatoon (since deceased) being the surviving sister, inherited the property of Ali Hussain. The mother of Ali Hussain died on January 19, 1998 leaving behind her, plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and 3 (sons) and Sahira Begum, the mother of the plaintiff Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in respect of her undivided 16.67% shares of the property. Sahira Begum also died leaving behind the plaintiff Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

3. Ali Hussain purchased the suit property by a registered deed of sale dated September 16, 1952. That the defendants were licensees under the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property, consisting of four tile shed rooms together with bath and privy situated at holding No.72, Srinath Porel Lane, Howrah. Abeda Khatoon and Jamila Khatoon (since deceased) allowed the defendants to reside in the said premises. Thereafter the plaintiffs also allowed the defendants to reside in the suit premises out of sympathy for a period of five years as mere licensees. The plaintiffs asked the defendants to vacate the suit premises, but they did not do so and it was to the utter surprise of the plaintiffs, that the defendants started taking measurements of the suit property and planned to make pucca constructions and new rooms. The notice was sent to the defendants through the learned lawyer of the plaintiff dated November 26, 2018, asking them to quit and vacate the suit premises within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the said notice. The plaintiffs prayed for the following reliefs:-

"15. The plaintiffs, therefore, pray for:

(i) a decree for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises as mentioned in the Schedule to the plaint and khas possession thereof.

(ii) cost of the suit.

(iii) any other relief/reliefs which the plaintiffs are entitled to in law and equity."

4. The petitioners filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also filed