Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. - (1.) This revisional application, at the instance of the defendant in an ejectment suit is directed against the order no. 25 dated November 23, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, at Barasat in Title Suit No. 488 of 2009. By the impugned order, the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the defendant petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code").
(2.) Shorn of details, the facts relevant for deciding the revisional application are that the opposite parties filed the Title Suit No. 488 of 2009, before the learned Court below claiming a decree for eviction and recovery of possession against the petitioner from the suit property described in the schedule-A to the plaint, being one storied one room (outhouse) with bath and privy and a small electric metre room together with land measuring one bigha, 13 chittacks and 32 square feet (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property"). The case made out by the plaintiffs opposite parties in the plaint, inter alia, are that by a registered deed of lease dated June 28, 1989 they let out the suit property in favour of the defendant to carry on its agency business under Indian Oil Corporation, for a period of twenty years ending on June 13, 2009 and at the time of filing the suit the monthly rent payable in respect of the suit property was Rs. 1064.80/-. The said lease was renewable for a further period of ten years with effect from July 01, 2009. However, the defendant violated the conditions of the said lease deed dated June 28, 1989 by subletting a portion of the suit property without prior permission of the plaintiffs and as such, by a notice dated April 22, 2006 the plaintiff opposite party no. 1 called upon the defendant petitioner to quit and vacate the suit property on expiry June 30, 2009. In any event, with the expiry of June 30, 2009 the lease of the defendant petitioner in respect of the suit property stood expired by efflux of time and in spite thereof, the latter failed and neglected to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. In the suit, the defendant, the petitioner herein, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, read with Section 151 of the Code for rejection of the plaint. According to the defendant/petitioner during the subsistence of the said lease with effect from July 10, 2001 West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1997") came into force and since he became a tenant in respect of the suit property under the said Act, the suit filed by the plaintiffs opposite parties on the ground of expiry of the lease by efflux of time is ex-facie not maintainable. The plaintiffs opposite parties contested the said application and in their written objection asserted that the eviction suit filed against the defendant is governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1882") and not by the Act of 1997. By the order dated November 23, 2012 the learned Court below held that from a plain reading of the plaint it appears that the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant on the basis of the lease agreement executed and registered on June 29, 1989 and the eviction suit does not fall under the provisions of the Act of 1997. The learned Court below further held that the defendant petitioner failed to establish his contention as to the maintainability of the suit under any of the clauses mentioned in Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. With the findings, by the order dated November 23, 2012 the learned Court below rejected the application of the defendant petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. As mentioned earlier, it is a said order dated November 23, 2012 which is the subject matter of challenge in this revisional application.
(3.) On June 5, 2017 the revisional application was dismissed for default. By an order dated August 10, 2017 passed in presence of the learned advocates appearing for the plaintiffs opposite parties, the revisional application was restored to its original file and number. On August 02, 2017 when the revisional application was taken up for hearing none appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs opposite parties. On September 13, 2017 the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner concluded his submission in the revisional application but none appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs opposite parties. Therefore, the hearing of the revisional application was concluded on September 13, 2017.;