DULARI BEGUM Vs. KHALIQUE ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application at the instance of the defendants in the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the eviction suit filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) In the application it is the case of the applicants/defendants that in paragraph 1 of the plaint the plaintiff has claimed herself to be thika tenant and as such in view of the provisions contained in Section 8(3) and Section 21 of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the said "Act of 2001") the civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the eviction suit. The plaintiff has contested this application by filing her affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition the plaintiff asserted herself to be a thika tenant in respect of the suit property.

(3.) Relying on the decision of this Court dated May 15, 2017 passed in C.O. No. 701 of 2013 (Sankar Burma Vs. Dipak Sonkar @ Khatik and Ors.) learned Counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 8(3) and Section 21 of the Act of 2001, when the plaintiff, in her plaint, asserted herself to be a thika tenant in respect of the suit property in the eviction suit filed before this Court is barred by law. It was emphasised that it is well settled law while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court has to consider the averments made in the plaint to be true and correct. In this regard, reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of 2012(8) SCC 701(Bhau Ram Vs. Janak Singh and others).