MIRA DAS Vs. DIPALI DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels for the respective parties.

(2.) THE facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows :-The plaintiff/ opposite party filed a Suit (T. S. 150 of 2001) against the petitioner praying for a declaration that the plaintiff/opposite party is a premises tenant in respect of the suit property under the defendant/ petitioner, permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from dispossessing the opposite party from the suit property and/or creating any hindrance, obstruction in the peaceful possession of the opposite party and for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to restore water and electric supply line in the suit property in favour of the opposite party. In the said suit the opposite party moved an application for injunction for a direction upon the petitioner to restore the supply of electricity to the opposite party subject to payment of consumption charges. The petitioner contested the said application by filing written objection. The learned trial Court by order dated 24. 08. 2005 allowed the said application by directing the petitioner to restore the supply of electricity to the opposite party subject to payment of consumption charges by the opposite party till the disposal of the suit. Challenging such order dated 24. 08. 2005 the petitioner preferred an appeal being misc. Appeal No. 228 of 2005. The said Misc. appeal came up for hearing and after hearing the Misc. appeal the learned lower Appellate Court dismissed the said Misc. appeal by order dated 19. 04. 2006. Challenging the saaid order dated 19. 04. 2006 the petitioner has filed the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised two points in this case. His first argument was that if the plaint filed by the opposite party is read as a whole it will be clear that the suit cannot be entertained by the Civil Court before which it has been instituted. The said learned counsel's submission was that in view of section 44 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred. According to the said learned counsel the opposite party's suit is essentially a suit for restoration of electric supply and water supply, and the Controller has been given the necessary powers in this regard under the said Act of 1997. The said learned counsel relied upon a judgement passed by a Division Bench of this Court in f. M. A. T. 4710 of 2006 in support of his submissions.