D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 13th May 2003 passed in C.S. No. 900 of 1986 by the learned single Judge decreeing the suit for recovery of possession. One Smt. Binapani Roy Chowdhury, the original plaintiff, executed a registered Deed of Leased dated 17th of September 1956 in respect of the land to the defendant/appellant for a period of 25 years effective from 15th August 1956 (expiring on 14th August 1981) with an option for renewal for a period of 5 years. In the schedule of the deed, the property was described as vacant land. Under the terms of the lease, the defendant/appellant erected structure on the land. On the expiry of 25 years, the defendant/appellant expressed its desire to exercise option for renewal of the lease for a term of 5 years informing the plaintiff/respondent that a deed for renewal of the lease would be executed. Ultimately, no deed of renewal of lease was executed. Since July 1982, the defendant/appellant stopped payment of license fee or occupation charge and denied the right title interest of the plaintiff in the property. The said Smt. Binapani Roy Chowdhury, the original plaintiff, terminated the tenancy and filed the suit for eviction and recovery of possessions as well as for mesne profits. On the death of Smt. Binapani Roy Chowdhury during the pendency of the suit, the present plaintiff/respondent became the owner and was substituted in the present suit. "1.1. The defendant/appellant set up a claim that with the enactment of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 (1981 Act) commencing from 18th of January 1982, the suit land vested in the State under section 5 of 1981 Act and the defendant/appellant became a thika tenant under the State. Alternatively, it claimed that by reason of payment and acceptance of rent after the expiry of the period of lease in the absence of any renewal or execution of fresh lease, the defendant/appellant became a premises tenant governed under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (WBPT Act). The notice purporting to terminate the tenancy was, therefore, invalid. 1.2. This suit has since been decreed holding inter alia that the defendant/appellant was not a thika tenant and the 1981 Act has no manner of application. Similarly, it was further held that the defendant/appellant was not a premises tenant under the WBPT Act. While the decreeing the suit, it had also granted mesne profits at the rate of rent last paid. The plaintiff/respondent filed a cross-objection seeking relief on the question of mesne profits." Submission by counsel:
(2.) The learned counsel for the respective parties had advanced long and erudite submissions on various points and led us through the materials on record and had discussed each of the question in threadbare. In our view, we are not called upon to answer all the question argued. We will confine ourselves only to the principal issues which would be relevant for our purpose instead of dealing with all the arguments spread over to various filed advanced by the respective counsel. Issues to be answered:
(3.) The issues can be divided broadly in two principal issues - one, whether the defendant/appellant became a thika tenant under the State by reason of the enactment of 1981 Act and the other, in the alternative, whether the defendant/appellant became a premises tenant governed by the WBPT Act by reason of its holding over under section 116 of the Transfer of property Act (TP Act). These two broad issues can be split into various sub-issues as dealt with by the respective counsel. "3.1. Apart from the above two broad issues, a secondary issue as to the maintainability of the suit before the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the Court was taken on two ground: pecuniary and subjective, viz. (i) that the valuation of the suit had since been enhanced to attract the jurisdiction of this Court and that the suit was not correctly valued; (ii) in view of sections 7 and 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (1997 Act) the jurisdiction of the Court has since ceased. 3.2. Before we proceed to decide the main two broad questions, we may answer the secondary question relating to the maintainability as hereafter." Maintainability: Pecuniary jurisdiction:;