Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) The four matters were taken up for analogous hearing since they arise from suits between the same parties, being heard together in the court below, and in view of the impugned orders in all the revisional applications being exactly similar.
(2.) The brief background of the case is that the plaintiff filed four suits against the opposite party, all on the ground of forfeiture as contemplated in Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In each of the said suits, initially applications were filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for rejection of the plaints. The trial court rejected such applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on which revisional applications were preferred before this court and a co-ordinate bench was pleased to allow the said revisions, thereby rejecting the plaints filed in the said suits.
(3.) A subsequent attempt to have the said order of the co-ordinate bench reviewed, met with failure, upon which separate special leave petitions were preferred before the Supreme Court, which were disposed of by holding that the question involved in those appeals was whether the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1997 Act") or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1882 Act") applied. It was further held that the said dispute could be resolved by framing an issue by the trial court on the said point and by adjudicating the same as a preliminary issue. Accordingly, the appeals were disposed of by directing the trial court to frame the issue relating to maintainability of the suits and applicability of the enactments as mentioned in the judgment of the Supreme Court and to decide the same in accordance with law as a preliminary issue.;