IMPORTANT POINT
Suit under Transfer of Property Act , 1882 for eviction in a case where lease is not terminated but is determined would be maintainable.

Dipankar Dutta, J.—By virtue of a registered deed of lease executed by and between the parties on 30.04.1984, the petitioner was put in possession of the property mentioned in the schedule thereof. Duration of the lease was for twenty-one years. By efflux of time, the lease expired. The opposite parties thereafter instituted a suit before the City Civil Court at Calcutta in the year 2006 seeking eviction of the petitioner and recovery of the leasehold property from him under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. An application was filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He claimed that the suit was not maintainable and, therefore, the plaint ought to be rejected. The principal ground raised by the petitioner is that he is a tenant governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and, therefore, without instituting a suit for securing his eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act of 1997, the suit under the Act of 1882 ought to be held not maintainable.

2. The application has been rejected by the order impugned in this revisional application.

3. The contention urged before the trial Court has been repeated by Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioner before this Court. However, such contention is squarely answered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in its decision Prakashwati Chopra Vs. Sibaji Mitra, 2007 (1) CLJ (Cal) 47. After examining the provisions of the Acts of 1882 and 1997 referred to above, Hon’ble Girish Chandra Gupta, J. speaking for the Bench observed that in a case where the lease has expired by efflux of time but the lessee has continued in possession, he/she would not come within the purview of the definition of a ‘tenant’ within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act of 1997 and a suit under the Act of 1882 for eviction in a case where the lease is not terminated but is determined would be maintainable. The Bench decision is binding on this Court and there is no other option but to overrule the contention raised by Mr. Banerjee on the authority thereof. The revisional application being devoid of any merit stands dismissed, without order for costs.

4. Since the suit has been pending before the trial Court for more than half a decade, the learned Judge is requested to proceed with utmost expedition. Subject to his convenience and without granting unnecessary adjournments, it would be desirable if the suit is finally disposed of by the end of this year. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties as early as possible.

Revision application dismissed.

********