UTTARAYAN TENANTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. ANUPAM SARAOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The master summons has been taken out by the defendants above named for rejection of the plaint and/or dismissal of the suit and incidental relief thereto.

(2.) In the affidavit in support of the summons the ground for rejection as above is stated that the suit has been filed for taking measure for maintenance of essential services and the same is justiciable exclusively before the Controller appointed under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The said Act provides specifically expressed remedy for bringing this sort of action. This apart it is said that the suit is overvalued to invoke jurisdiction of this Court and further that the identical reliefs claimed herein were also claimed in another title suit filed by the plaintiff Nos. 2,3 and 7 in the Court of City Civil which was allowed to be dismissed and hence present suit is barred under laws. At the time of first hearing it was found that there has been no copy of the plaint which is sought to be rejected, later on in terms of the order of the Court a copy of the plaint has been brought on record by filing supplementary affidavit.

(3.) Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, learned Advocate appearing in support of the summons contends that upon careful reading of the plaint it will appear that the plaintiffs in the suit claimed for maintenance of essential supplies to the respective flats let out by way of monthly tenancy. He contends that section 45 of the said Tenancy Act creates a complete bar to institution of the suit, with regard to the nature of the suit.