Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.)The present revision has been preferred at the instance of the defendants in an eviction suit against an order whereby the petitioners' application for rejection of plaint, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed.
(2.)Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the plaint schedule describes the suit property as follows :
"All that piece and parcel of three rooms, veranda, common bath and privy having brick walls tile shed at premises No. 6H/9, Raicharan Paul Lane, P.S. Topsia, Kolkata- 700046."

It is argued that the plaintiff thus admitted himself to be the owner of only the structure situated on the suit land and not of the land itself, raising a presumption that the same is a thika tenancy property.

Moreover, the address of the premises is "6H/9, Raicharan Paul Lane". As such, it is argued that the premises is comprised of a hut and is, on the face of it, a thika property.

(3.)It is further argued that, in the plaint, the opposite party referred to a reply being given by the petitioners to the quit notice given by the plaintiff/opposite party. Since such document was referred to in the plaint, the court ought to have looked into it. The said reply, it is submitted, raised the contention that the suit property is a thika property.