(1.) The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the defendant tenant against an order passed by the Trial Court under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. In the said application, a dispute as to the landlord- tenant relationship between the parties was raised by the defendant/petitioner. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant did not come within the purview of the definition of tenant under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1997 Act"). On such observation, the said application under Section 7(2) was rejected on contest, which has been challenged in the present revision.
(2.) Learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner argues that the plaintiff admitted, in paragraph no. 3 of the plaint, that the present defendant became a tenant under the plaintiffs upon the death of his father, for a period of five years. Such death apparently took place in the year 2009, that is, about four years after the death of the original tenant Parab Kumari Boyed, the mother of the defendant. It is argued that since the plaintiffs themselves admitted in paragraph no. 3 of the plaint that the defendant became a tenant on the death of his father, it could not be concluded by the Trial Court that the defendant lost his tenancy right after the expiry of five years from the death of his mother.
(3.) It was further argued that the Trial Court did not adjudicate at all the dispute as to whether all the brothers of the defendant became co-tenants on the death of his father. Once it was admitted that the defendant and his father became joint tenants on the demise of Parab Kumari, the allegation of joint tenancy of the other sons of Parab Kumari ought to have been considered by the Court below, in view of such question having been raised by the present petitioner.