ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J. - (1.) THIS revisional application is at the instance of the defendants in the ejectment suit being Title Suit No. 304 of 2009. Admittedly, the suit property is situate at Village Gunanandapur, P.O. Antila, P.S. Bagnan, DistrictHowrah. According to the opposite parties/plaintiffs the provisions contained in West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1997 Act") do not apply to any property situate at Bagnan, District -Howrah. Accordingly, after terminating the tenancy of the petitioner herein, by issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the opposite parties plaintiffs filed the said ejectment suit before the Second Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Divison) at Uluberia. Before dealing with the facts of this case, it may be noted that before coming into force of the 1997 Act, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to a "the 1956 Act") was applicable in respect of tenancies of any property situate at Bagnan, as by a notification dated March 30, 1956 issued by the Governor the said Act was extended to the area comprised in villages Bagnan, Khalore jurisdiction. With effect from July 10, 2001 the 1997 Act came into foce and by virtue of Section 45 of the said Act, the said Act of 1956 stood repealed.
(2.) IN the said ejectment suit the defendants petitioners filed two applications. The first one, under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act for deposit of rent in Court. The second application was, for dismissal of the ejectment suit on the ground that the tenancy was governed by the 1997 Act and in absence of a notice under Section 6(4) of the 1997 Act the ejectment suit was not maintainable.
(3.) IN both the applications filed under Section 7(1) of the Act of 1997 and for dismissal of the suit it was the contention of the defendant petitioner that although by Section 45 of the 1997 Act, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1956") was repealed but in view of Section 25 of The Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899, the said notification dated March 30, 1956 issued under the said 1956 Act still remains valid, as no notification has been issued under the 1997 Act contrary to the said notification issued under the 1956 Act. By an order dated February 04, 2013 the learned Civil Judge specifically held that in view of Section 45 of the 1997 Act repealing the said Act of 1956, Section 25 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 cannot be made applicable in the instant case. By the imougned order dated August 23, 2013 the learned Civil Judge also rejected the second application filed by the defendant petitioner, challenging the maintainability of the said suit. The learned Civil Judge held that Section 1 of the 1997 Act specifically provides that the said Act shall be applicable to the areas included within the limits of, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, the Howrah Municipal Corporation and the Municipal areas within the meaning of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 and such provision is contrary to the said notification dated March 30, 1956. Thus, the learned Civil Judge held it can be well construed that the said notification issued under the said Act of 1956 is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1997 Act and as such Section 25 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 has no manner of application in this case.;