PRASENJIT MANDAL,J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the Order Nos.26 & 27 dated December 6, 2012 and January 15, 2013 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Baruipur in Title Suit No.117 of 2011 thereby rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C.
(2.) THE plaintiff/opposite party no.1 herein instituted the above-mentioned suit for declaration of tenancy right and permanent injunction against the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 before the learned Trial Judge. In that suit, the defendant no.1/petitioner herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. contending, inter alia, that the said suit is barred by limitation. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the plaintiff has contended that he is a tenant in respect of the suit premises as described in the schedule to the plaint, but, the original landlord, i.e., the defendant no.2 had refused to accept rent from the plaintiff in 1987. Thereafter, when he tendered rent by money order, it was not accepted. Ultimately, on April 24, 2011, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly from the premises in suit, the suit has been filed.;