DULAL CHANDRA BAYEN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, whereby the earlier writ petition filed by the present petitioner, was dismissed.

(2.) Facts relevant for deciding the present proceeding are that originally one Durga Bala Acooli, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 2 was the owner of the disputed premises being No. 18/1, Ramesh Mitra Road, Kolkata. Ratan Chandra Bayen, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was inducted as thika tenant in respect of the land in the said premises, whereupon his son Birendra Chandra Bayen constructed temporary structure on the said land for carrying on motor repairing workshop. The respondent No. 2 realised rent in respect of the land against receipt. Petitioner along with respondent Nos. 3 to 9 became thika tenant of the said land by way of succession from the aforesaid predecessor-in-interest. After the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 came into operation, petitioner's predecessor-in-interest Birendra Chandra got his name enrolled as thika tenant for the said land and the petitioner also deposited rent in respect of the said land in the office of the Thika Controller, Kolkata. Municipal records were also amended showing the Government of West Bengal as owner of the land and the petitioner, owner of the structure standing thereon.

(3.) Respondent No. 2 claimed himself to be the owner and landlord of the said premises and filed Eviction Suit against the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest on the alleged ground of default of payment of rent since October, 1986 as also on the ground of building and rebuilding. Petitioner was also added respondent No. 4 in the said suit. Written Statement was filed in the said suit denying that the tenancy was governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and the thika tenancy was claimed. The said predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner died during pendency of the suit. Petitioner raised preliminary objection against maintainability of the suit on the ground of the bar created under the provisions of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 but final determination of the said issue was postponed till the hearing of the suit by an order dated 8th August, 1990 in Civil Revision case being C.O. No. 2670 of 1990. Though predecessor-in-interest got his name enrolled as thika tenant by filing return on 4th October, 1989, the respondent No. 2 submitted representations against the enrolment of the name of the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest as thika tenant before the Thika Controller of Kolkata. Respondent No. 2 moved writ petition before this Court challenging the inaction on the part of the thika Controller for not disposing of the said representations expeditiously whereupon, a learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the Controller, thika tenancy, to consider and dispose of the said representations after giving the representationist (being the respondent No. 2 here) and the present petitioner an opportunity of being heard by a reasoned order. Accordingly, Thika Tenancy by an order dated 8th December, 1993 held that the petitioner is not a thika tenant but a premises tenant. Challenging the said order, the petitioner along with other heirs of his predecessor-in-interest preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court at Alipore taking a preliminary point regarding the jurisdiction of the Controller to decide such a dispute concerning determination of the status of the parties which is exclusively in the domain of Civil Court. The appeal was dismissed and the said Appellate order was challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition being C.O. No. 4556(W) of 1997 which was subsequently transferred to the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal and was renumbered as T.A. No. 211 of 2002. The said writ application was also dismissed by the learned Tribunal and challenging the said order, the present writ petition was filed.