27.03.2025 Ct. No.22 pg.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CO 898 of 2023 Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, SARC & Anr.

Vs.

Smt. Juthika Debnath & Ors.

Ms. Shohini Chakraborty Mr. Anirban Pramanick Mr. Punarbasu Nath Ms. Bhagyasree Dey … For the petitioners Mr. Rittick Chowdhury Mr. Ramij Munshi Ms. Muskan Agarwal … For the opposite party nos.2, 3 & 4

1. This revisional application has been filed assailing the order dated 22nd February, 2023 passed in connection with Title Suit No.973 of 2021 wherein the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 9th Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas, rejected an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant nos.4 and 5.

2. Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 11th November, 2021 with a prayer for rejection of plaint on the ground of the provision of Section 34 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’) which deals with bar of jurisdiction of civil court.

3. A suit was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 herein with a prayer for declaring the right of tenancy in respect of the suit premises as well as consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, including the defendant nos.4 and 5/petitioners herein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 herein.

4. In the plaint, it has been delineated by the plaintiff that she was tenant in respect of the suit premises at a monthly rental of Rs.20,000/- payable according to English Calendar month. She used to pay rent to the landlords/defendant nos.1 to 3 till the month of August, 2021. Thereafter, she received one notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 1st September, 2021 with a direction to vacate the suit premises. Thereafter, the landlords/opposite party nos.2 to 4 herein also refused to accept the rent on and from September, 2021. It was further averred in the plaint that on 25th September, 2021, some men and agents of the defendant nos.4 and 5 entered into the suit premises and directed the plaintiff to vacate within fifteen days. According to the plaintiffs, cause of action arose in the suit on 12th September, 2021 when she received the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 1st September, 2021 and also on 25th September, 2021 when men and agents of the defendant nos.4 and 5/petitioners herein entered into the subject premises and directed the plaintiffs to vacate.

5. In that suit, defendant nos.4 and 5 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure which was refused, particularly on the basis of the following decisions:- 1. (2004) 4 SCC 311;

2. (2012) 2 Cal LT 150 (HC); 3. (2011) 3 Cal LT 219 (HC);

4. (2014) 6 SCC 1, and

5. (2016) 3 SCC 762 (Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India & Ors.).

6. Ms. Shohini Chakraborty, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has drawn my attention to the provision of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act and to add to that, Section 14(4A) of the SARFAESI Act and has submitted that civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue involving notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has tried to make this Court understand that the right of a bona fide tenant cannot be curtailed by the provision of the SARFAESI Act overriding the law envisaged under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act as well as the Transfer of Property Act. In support of his contention, he relied on the ratio of Vishal N. Kalsaria (supra), particularly paragraphs 29, 30 and

37.

8. Alternatively, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has submitted that liberty may be given to the opposite parties to file appropriate application before