- (1.) Leave granted. Heard Mr. Kashinath De, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhijit Sen Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) The appellant instituted Ejectment Suit No.61 of 2003 before the Rent Controller at Kolkata for eviction of the legal heirs of the original tenant, Mr. Govind Shaw. As claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondents ceased to be the tenants after expiry of five years from the commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (for short, 'the Act') in view of Section 2(g) of the Act. Be it stated, the Act came into force with effect from 10th July, 2001.
(3.) The suit was filed for eviction on many a ground. Though the evidence was recorded by the Small Causes Court, the plaintiff realizing that the suit would not be maintainable for eviction as the respondents had ceased seized to be the tenants in law as per Section 2(g) of the Act, he filed an application No.803/13 before the High Court of Calcutta under Section 24(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of the case to the regular court on the foundation that the respondents were not more tenants and hence, the regular civil court would have jurisdiction. The High Court referred to certain decisions which pertain to vested rights of tenants but did not record a finding. However, the conclusion recorded by the High Court reads as follows : "Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties one fact that clearly emerges is that there is no pleading at all in the plaint to the effect that the contesting opposite parties have lost their right of tenancy in the suit premises on the expiry of five years from the date of death or from the date of coming into force of the said Act of 1997, whichever is later. As discussed above, it will appear that the reading of the plaint indicates that the contesting opposite parties were asked to vacate the suit premises with the expiry 8 March 2002 or whenever tenancy month expires next but not on the expiry of five years as contemplated under the said Act of 1997. As discussed above, it will also appear that the plaintiff was willing to accept rent from January 2002. The learned Advocate for the contesting opposite parties also submitted that in the affidavit of evidence -in -chief the plaintiff/petitioner did not make out any case as contemplated under the said Act of 1997 in so far as the right of having protection from eviction for a period of five years as contemplated under the said Act of 1997 is concerned. The learned Advocate for the contesting opposite parties was right in submitting that even if the prayer made in the application under Section 24 C.P.C. is allowed the City Civil Court concerned cannot decide the suit in the absence of the necessary pleadings. The said learned Advocate was right in submitting that on the basis of the pleadings as its stands the prayer for transfer cannot be allowed. It is difficult to say, on the basis of the pleadings in the plaint, as pointed out by the learned Advocate for the contesting opposite parties, that the Small Causes Court concerned has lost its jurisdiction. It is true that the learned Advocates for the respective parties have made their submissions, as already noted above, but this Court is of the view that the matter can be disposed of on factual basis that the argument made by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff/petitioner is not supported by any appropriate pleading in the plaint. In view of the discussions made above, the prayer for transfer as made in the application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code is rejected and the said application under Section 24 C.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed. ;