The central legal point established in the judgment is the non-applicability of the 1993 Act and the 2012 Notification to the property transfer dispute, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents instituted a suit bearing Title Suit No.252 of 1998 against the predecessors of the defendant/appellant, in the 2ndCourtof Civil Judge, Senior Division at Barasat, District- North 24 Parganas for declaration that five documents dated August, 1993, purportedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant no.1, are invalidated, inoperative, illegal and void in the eye of law and not binding on the plaintiffs and that the possession of the ground floor flat of the said premises under cover of the said documents by the defendants is unauthorised and illegal, a decree of khas possession declaring the defendants as trespassers, for permanent injunction and mesne profits.

2. The said suit was contested by the defendant no.1 Smt. Dipsikha Chakraborty (the present appellant no.1) by filing a written statement, thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint.

3. Upon hearing both sides, the Trial Judge dismissed the said suit on contest without costs. Being thus aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal bearing Title appeal no.62 of 2005, which was ultimately allowed on contest by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1 at Barasat, thereby reversing the decision of the Trial Judge and decreeing the suit in part, declaring an agreement of assignment (Exhibit 1) and an agreement for tenancy (Exhibit 2), both dated August 13, 1992, as void documents and directing the defendants to vacate the suit property in favour of the appellant no.1 within three months.

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendants/appellants have preferred the instant Second Appeal bearing S.A. No.373 of 2006.

5. The Second Appeal was admitted on three substantial question of law, formulated as below:

i) Whether the learned First Appellate Court committed substantial error in law in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court?

ii) Whether the learned First Appellate Court committed substantial error in law in not accepting the appellant at least as tenants if not owners?

iii) Whether the learned First Appellate Court committed substantial error in law in not holding that the suit is barred in view of the provisions of Sections 7, 8, 10 and 21 of the West Bengal Land (Regulation of Transfer) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the 1993 Act')?

6. At the time of hearing, a fourth substantial question of law was formulated as follows:

Whether due to subsequent change of law the defendant/appellant acquired a right to validate the disputed assignment?

7. An application for production of additional evidence bearing CAN 7 of 2021, filed by the appellant, was directed to be heard and ultimately heard along with the Second Appeal itself.

8. Learned counsel for the defendant/appellant submits that the Appellate Court substantially erred in law in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, whereby the suit was dismissed, merely on the ground of alleged illegality being perpetrated by the parties.

9. It is submitted that, in any event, the appellant was at least a tenant in respect of the suit property by virtue of the tenancy agreement dated August 13, 1993. Therefore, it is argued that the First Appellate Court erred in law in proceeding on the premise that the appellant was an 'unauthorised occupant' in respect of the suit property.

10. That apart, it is submitted that the Appellate Court erroneously applied the 1993 Act inasmuch as the said Act, upon amendment, was scheduled to come into effect as per the date given in the subsequent Notification to be issued by the Government. However, such Notification having never been issued, it is contended that the 1993 Act, which allegedly rendered the transaction invalid, could not be invoked at all.

11. Although there was a restrictive clause in the original lease deed issued by the Government in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of transfer of the property, it is submitted that the