CAMELIA Vs. PEYARAN BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against Order dated 5th March 2012 made by the learned Court of 4th Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Howrah in T.S. No. 190 of 2010 by which the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure made by the opposite party defendant was rejected. The opposite parties/plaintiffs had filed the instant suit for eviction of the petitioner/defendant under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The demise is situated within the local limits of P.S. Domjur. According to the petitioner tenant, the said area was notified to be included within the extent of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and as such, the suit of the opposite parties was barred. The petitioner submits that even though the said Act of 1956 was repealed, the extent of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy, Act, 1997 is, inter alia, to areas within the limits of the Howrah Municipal Corporation and the municipal areas within the meaning of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, but the demise is situated in the Panchayat area of Domjur. Since it was included by Notification under the old Act, that benefit the petitioner is entitled to get by virtue of Section 8 of the Bengal General Classes Act.

(2.) On behalf of opposite parties/plaintiffs reliance is placed on an unreported judgment dated 27.3.1998 made in SA 420 of 1986 (Sri Samarsh Ash v. Dinobandhu Ash) in which it was held that upon enquiry made by the Court regarding inclusion of the said area in respect of the extent of the old Act whether was published in the Official Gazette or not, a letter was written to the Court by an officer of the State Government saying that there was no such publication in the Official Gazette. In the circumstances, this Court by that judgment found that in the absence of Notification having been published in the Official Gazette of the State Government and in the absence of any document having been produced on behalf of the appellant to show that such Notification was published in the Official Gazette, it could not be said that the operation of the said Act had also been extended to the Domjur area in the District of Howrah.

(3.) By reason of the finding in the judgment relied upon, there is no force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the benefit of the Notification of extension of the operation of the old Act to the area of Domjur in which the demise is situate, to attract the provisions of the new Act as a bar to suit brought under the Transfer of Property Act.