JUDGMENT :

(Biswajit Basu, J.)

1. The plaintiff, the respondent herein, initiated the ejectment action under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997(hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act of 1997’ in short) before the Additional Controller at Sealdah for eviction of the defendant from the suit shop room, the said proceeding was subsequently transferred to the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Sealdah, District-24 Parganas(South) being Ejectment Suit No. 607 of 2004. The instant second appeal is arising out of the said suit, at the instance of the defendant.

2. Default in payment of rent, the suit shop-room requires thorough repair which cannot be carried out without evicting the defendant, the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit shop-room for her own use and occupation and the defendant has violated the clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are the grounds on which the plaintiff sought eviction of the defendant.

3. The defendant although in his written statement denied the plaint case but did not challenge the maintainability of the said suit on any specific ground, nonetheless the learned Trial Judge framed a general issue regarding maintainability of the said suit and the defendant, while addressing the said issue questioned the maintainability of it on the ground that Section 21 of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001(hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act of 2001’ in short) is a bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the said suit.

4. The learned Trial Judge decided the aforesaid issue in favour of the plaintiff holding that since the cause of action of the said suit arose prior to the commencement of the said Act of 2001, Section 21 thereof is no fetter to the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Judge in entertaining and deciding the said suit and decreed it vide the judgment and decree dated March 26, 2013 holding that the jural relationship of landlord-tenant was there between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant was a post suit defaulter in payment of rent and the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for her own use and occupation. The judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge have been affirmed in appeal by the impugned judgment and decree dated February 25, 2016. The Appeal Court below has held that the cause of action of the said suit arose on determination of defendant’s tenancy by the notice to quit dated September 28, 2000, and such cause of action since arose prior to the commencement of the said Act of 2001, Section 21 thereof did not affect the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Judge.

5. The instant second appeal was admitted under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to answer the following substantial question of law:-

Whether both the Courts below were justified in holding that the suit for eviction of a Bharatia by the thika tenant is maintainable before the Civil Court without considering the provision contained in Section 8(3) of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 read with Section 13(2) of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Rules, 2004 or not?

6. The following additional substantial question of law was framed in course of hearing of the appeal when from the record it appeared that the notice determining the tenancy of the defendant was under Section 13(6) of The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956(hereinafter referred to ‘the said Act of 1956’ in short), whereas the suit was under Section 6 of the said Act of 1997:-

Whether the eviction suit under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is maintainable on the basis of a notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956?

7. Mr. Chirantan Sarkar, learned advocate for the appellant argues that admittedly the defendant is a bharatia under a thika tenant, as such the Thika Controller by virtue of