Asit Kumar Bisi, J. - (1.) The question to be decided in the instant matter at this stage is whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. It has been pleaded by defendant No. 3 K.G. Patel & Co. in paras 2 and 3 of their written statement that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is ousted under Section 23 of the Calcutta Thika and Other Tenancies and Lands (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 and this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. An issue being issue No. 2 on this question of jurisdiction has also been framed in the instant suit to the following effect:- Is there thika tenancy in respect of the disputed premises and if so, does this Court have any jurisdiction to entertain this suit?
(2.) The plaintiffs as it appears have instituted the instant suit against the defendants seeking inter alia declaration that the plaintiffs are absolute owners in respect of premises No. 45, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta, together with the structures standing thereon more fully described in Schedule 'A' to the plaint, further declaration that the said premises No. 45, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta, together with all structures standing thereon has not vested in defendant No. 1 the State of West Bengal by and under the provisions of the Calcutta Thika and Other Tenancies and Lands (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 and a decree for possession of the said premises by evicting the defendant therefrom. The plaintiffs have also claimed decree for mesne profits and other reliefs.
(3.) It has been alleged by the plaintiffs inter alia in paragraph 7 of the plaint that sometime immediately before 20th January, 1995, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 appear to have purportedly declared defendant No. 1 as owner of the said premises by reason of the alleged vesting of the same under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 and recognised the defendant firm as Thika tenant behind the back and without any knowledge of or notice to the plaintiffs and pursuant thereto the said defendant firm approached the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to recognise it as thika tenant in their records. It has been further alleged by the plaintiffs that the said Municipal Corporation issued a notice to the plaintiffs being No. A/XIV/94 dated 20th January, 1995 stating that the defendant firm had applied for recording its name in the records of the said Corporation as a thika tenant by allegedly producing some purposed thika challans. As per the case of the plaintiffs in reply to the said notice the plaintiffs by a letter dated 15th May, 1995 denied any right of the defendant firm as a thika tenant. Despite the same the defendant caused the said Municipal Corporation to pass an order without any further notice or any hearing to the plaintiffs whereby the said premises was recorded as a thika property and the name of the defendant firm was recorded as thika tenant in respect of the same. Further case of the plaintiffs is that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said action on the part of the defendants, the plaintiffs preferred an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court being writ petition No. 847 of 1996 and a limited relief was granted by the learned trial Judge by his order dated 27th May, 1996 and on appeal the Division Bench by the order dated 3.10.1996 modified the order of the learned trial Judge and set aside the order dated 8.2.1996 passed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation mutating the name of the defendant firm as aforesaid. The Division Bench further observed that the parties should get their respective title decided in an appropriate forum.;