Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Puran Shaw vs Smt. Prabhawati Shaw (Since Deceased) … on 5 March, 2026
1
2026:CHC-AS:364
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury
F.M.A. 1020 of 2017
With
IA NO: CAN 1 of 2017 (Old No: CAN 2850 of 2017)
CAN 2 of 2017 (Old No: CAN 8464 of 2017)
Sri Puran Shaw
VERSUS
Smt. Prabhawati Shaw (since deceased) represented by the legal heirs
Mohan Shaw & Ors.
For the appellant: Mr. Debayan Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Anyasha Das, Adv.
For the respondent:
Mrs. Punam Verma, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Adv.
Mrs. A Verma, Adv.
Mr. S. Naskar, Adv.
Ms. Aparna Sarkar, Adv.
Last Heard on: February 10, 2026
Judgment on: March 05, 2026
Biswaroop Chowdhury,J:
The Appellant before this Court was a defendant before Trial Court in a
suit for eviction and respondent in Title Appeal where the Order Passed under
2
2026:CHC-AS:364Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Learned Trial Court was
assailed by the plaintiff. The Appellant being aggrieved by the Order passed by
Learned Civil Judge Senior Division Small Causes Court at Sealdah in
Ejectment Appeal No-2 of 2016 arising out of Ejectment Suit no-91 of 2014 in
which the order of dismissal of suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure passed by Learned Trial Court was reversed and the matter remitted
to Learned Trial Court to decide the suit on merits has come up with the
instant appeal.
The Original plaintiff Pravabati Devi instituted Ejectment Suit against the
appellant Puran Shaw under Section 6 of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act
1999 for ejectment.
An application was filed by the appellant/defendant challenging the
maintainability of the suit under Section 8(3) and Section 21 of West Bengal
Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act 2001.
Learned Trial Judge upon considering the pleadings made in paragraph
1 of the plaint where the plaintiff claimed herself as owner of the structure
standing on Thika Land and upon considering the provisions of Section 8(3)
and Section 21 of West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act
2001 which came into effect on 1st March 2003, was pleased to hold that the
suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court, and dismissed the same.
The plaintiff being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the
Learned Trial Court preferred an appeal. By Judgment and Order dated 9th
3
2026:CHC-AS:364
January 2017 the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) was pleased to allow
the appeal being Ejectment Appeal no-3 of 2016 by observing and directing as
follows:
There is nothing on record at the stage of the consideration of the
maintainability of the suit that the plaintiff waived his claim. Unless the
evidences is laid such conclusion cannot be drawn. In consideration of the
record of the Learned Trial Court it appears that the determination of the
jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the cause of action which involves
mixed question of law and facts. Only on the basis of the consideration of the
jurisdiction this question cannot be determined.
After due consideration of the order and decree of the Learned Trial
Court, this Court finds that the impugned order and decree so passed by
Learned Trial Court is not sustainable and requires interference. Therefore the
Appeal succeeds the order and Decree passed in Ejectment Suit 91 of 2014 on
17th August 2015, by Learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sealdah
are hereby set aside.
Memo of appeal is correctly stamped.
„Hence it is ORDERED that the Appeal be and the same is allowed on
contest without any order of cost. The Order and Decree passed in Ejectment
suit 91 of 2014 in 17th August 2015 by Learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division) Sealdah are hereby set aside. Let the Trial Court Record be returned
4
2026:CHC-AS:364to the Learned Trial Court with this judgment on open remand, with request to
dispose of the same considering the age of pendency of the case.
The Ejectment Appeal is thus disposed of on contest.‟
The appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the
Appellate Court has come up with the instant appeal.
Heard Learned Advocate for the appellant and Learned Advocate for the
respondents. Perused the materials on record.
Learned Advocate for the appellant/defendant submits that it is an
admitted fact that the suit property is a Thika Property. Learned Advocate
further submits that it is clearly stated in the plaint that the cause of action of
the suit arose on 1st October 2005 after incorporation of the West Bengal Thika
Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act 2001. Learned Advocate also submits
that The West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act 2001
Came into operation on 22nd November 2002. Therefore when the suit was
instituted by the plaintiff/appellant in 2005, the West Bengal Thika Tenancy
(Acquisition and Regulation) Act 2001 was enacted and given effect to. It is
submitted by the Learned Advocate that Section 8(3) read with Section 21 of
the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act 2001 puts an
embargo in toto with respect to eviction of Bharatia under Section 6 of West
Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997.
Learned Advocate relies upon the following judicial decision:
5
2026:CHC-AS:364
Krishna Shaw and ors. VS Netai Pandit.
Reported in (2016) 3 Cal. HCN. 1.
Learned Advocate for the respondents submits that the fact behind the
initiation of the Appeal is that the Respondent/Plaintiff filed suit for ejectment
of the defendant under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act
1997 which was re-numbered as Ejectment Suit no. 113 of 2005. Defendant
appeared in the said suit and filed petition challenging the maintainability of
the suit.
The basis of the plea was that the suit property being Thika Property the
jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred. The Trial Court held the suit to be non-
maintainable against which the respondent preferred appeal and the order
passed by Learned Trial Court was set aside and the matter remitted to Trial
Court.
Learned Advocate further submits that the plaint clearly pleaded default
in payment of rent since March 1981 and defendant liable to be evicted.
Learned Advocate also submits that cause of action cannot be rejected merely
on objection raised by the defendant, and it depends on bundle of facts and
continuous default. Learned Advocate submits that the defendant was
adjudged defaulter for the period March 1981-April 2006 by competent
authority and such order remained unchallenged. Learned Advocate further
submits that the applicability of the Thika Tenancy Act and its effect on
Jurisdiction required evidence and statutory interpretation. Learned Advocate
6
2026:CHC-AS:364also submits that retrospective application cannot defeat accrued cause of
action under earlier tenancy Law.
Before proceeding to decide the material in issue it is to be remembered
that although maintainability is a mixed question of law and fact and the
Courts can decide the issue of maintainability along with other issues but
where the Court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be
disposed of on an issue of law only it may try that issue. The relevant provision
under Order XIV Rule 2 sub-rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as
follows:
„Order XIV Rule 2 Sub-rule-2- Where issues both of law and of facts arise
in the same suit and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof
may be disposed of on an issue of law only it may try that issue first if that
issue relates to-
a) the jurisdiction of the Court or
b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force.
And for that purpose may if it thinks fit postpone the settlement of the
other issues until after that issue has been determined and may deal with the
suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.‟
In the instant case the maintainable of the suit under Section 6(1) of the
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 before Civil Court is raised from the
averments made in paragraph 1 of the plaint.
7
2026:CHC-AS:364
Paragraph 1 of the plaint contains the following statements:
“That the petitioner is the owner of the structure/house property
standing on this land situated at and being Premises no. 112/1/H/6.
Cossipore Road Police Station-Chitpore Kolkata-700002 and one Rajendra
Prasad Shaw, the brother of the Opp.party was a monthly tenant for residential
purpose under the petitioner in respect of One tile shed room with common
facility of Latrine in the Ground floor of the said premises at the monthly rent
of Rs. 15/- payble as per English Calender month and there existed a
relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the said
Rajendra Prosad Shaw. The said tenancy of Rajendra Prasad shaw is morefully
described in the schedule hereunder written and hereinafter referred to as the
„SUIT PROPERTY‟”
On the plea taken by the defendant that the suit property is on Thika
Land the plaintiff has admitted the same and has claimed his relationship with
the defendant as Landlord and Tenant. At the outset it is to be determined as
to whether the defendant is a Bharatia definded in Section (1a) of the Thika
Tenancy Acquisition and Regulation Act 2001.
As per section 1a of West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and
Regulation) Act 2001 Bharatia means any person, by whom or on whose
account rent is payable [for any structure including pucca structure if any or
part thereof] owned by a Thika tenant but excludes any person paying rent to a
Bharatia and any [resident of any structure including pucca structure if any]
8
2026:CHC-AS:364
forfeited by the State Government under sub-section (2) of Section 6,
irrespective of the status the said person may have enjoyed earlier.
Under Section 2(14) Thika tenant means any person who occupies
whether under a written lease or otherwise land under another person and is
or but for a special contract would be liable to pay rent at a monthly or any
other periodical rate for that land to that another person and has erected or
acquired [by purchase or gift any structure including pucca structure, if
acquired [by purchase or gift any structure including pucca structure, if any on
such land] for residential manufacturing or business purpose and includes the
successors-in-interest of such persons but excludes any resident of a structure
forfeited to the State under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of this Act irrespective
of the status he may have enjoyed earlier.
As per section 2(15) of West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and
Regulation) Act 2001 „Thika land means any land comprised in and
appurtenant to tenancies of Thika tenant irrespective of the fact whether there
is any claim of such tenancy or not and includes open areas and roads on such
land.
Now upon considering the definition of Bharatia, Thika tenant, and Thika
land as provided under West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and
Regulation) Act 2001 and the contention made in paragraph 1 of the plaint and
that the plaintiff has admitted the suit property to be Thika Land and the
9
2026:CHC-AS:364
Defendant to be his tenant the plaintiff in effect has admitted the defendant to
be her Bharatiya.
As the plaintiff has sought for eviction of defendant admitting him to be
his Bharatiya, it is to be decided as to whether a suit for eviction of Bharatia is
maintainable before Civil Court.
Section 8(3) of West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation)
Act 2001 provides that any dispute regarding payment of rent by the thika
tenant to the State Government or by a Bharatia to a thika tenant or any case
of eviction of Bharatiya shall be disposed of by the controller in such manner
as may be prescribed.
Section 21 of West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation)
Act 2001 provides that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide or to
deal with any question or to determine any matter which by or under this Act
is required to be or has been decided or dealt with or which is to be, or has
been determined by the controller or the appellate or other authority specified
in the provisions of this Act, and no order or judgment passed or proceedings
including execution proceedings commenced under the provisions of this Act
shall be called in question in any civil Court.
As the present suit is for eviction of a Bharatiya it has to be disposed of
by the Controller as provided under Section 8(3) of West Bengal Thika Tenancy
(Acquisition and Regulation) Act 2001.
10
2026:CHC-AS:364
In the case of Krishna Shaw and Ors. VS Netai Pandit reported in (2016)
3 Calcutta HCN.P-1. Hon‟ble Division Bench of this Court observed as follows:
„11. Sub-Section 3 of Section 8 of the said Act provides that any dispute
regarding payment of rent by the thika tenant to the state Government or by a
Bharatia to a thika tenant or any case of eviction of Bharatia shall be disposed
of by the Controller in such manner as may be prescribed.
12. The Controller has also been defined in Section 2(2) of the said Act
which provides that controller means an officer appointed [under Section9] and
includes an Additional Controller and a Deputy Controller.
13. Necessary rule for dealing with such eviction proceeding has also
been framed under Rule 13 of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and
Regulation) Rules 2004 such rule was notified in Kolkata Gazette Extraordinary
issue on 2nd November 2004.
14. As such we have no hesitation to hold that both the Act and the Rule
were in operation at that time when the suit was filed. Considering the
aforesaid provisions of the said Act as well as the Rule framed therein, we have
no hesitation to hold that an eviction suit filed by the thika tenant for evicting
the Bharatiya lies before the controller appointed under Section 9 of the said
Act.
Such suit will not lie before the Civil Court even though the West Bengal
Premises Tenancy Act provides for maintaining such suit before the Civil Court
11
2026:CHC-AS:364
for simple reason that the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and
Regulation) Act 2001 received the assent of the Governor on 22nd November
2002. i.e. subsequent to the grant of assent by the Governor to the West
Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 on 10th July 2001.
15. Since it is well settled that when the provision of two States Acts
contradicts with each other, the provision of the latter Act will prevail over the
other for the simple reason that while considering the latter Act, the Governor
had before His excellency all the earlier Acts and despite noticing the contrary
provision contained in the earlier Act, the Governor was pleased to grant assent
to the latter Act and thereby expressing His desire to implement the latter Act.
16. Following this principle, we hold that the suit for eviction of a
Bharatia by the thika tenant will lie before the Controller appointed under
Section 9 of the said Act.
Upon hearing the Learned Advocates and considering the Judicial
decisions this Court is of the view that the suit against the appellant/defendant
is not maintainable before the Civil Court and it has to be instituted before the
Controller under Section 8(3) of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy Acquisition
and Regulation Act 2001. Thus the Order passed by the Learned First
Appellate Court cannot be sustained and the same should be set aside.
Hence this Appeal FMA 1020 of 2017 stands allowed. Judgment and
Order dated 9-01-2017 passed by Learned Civil Judge (senior Division) Small
Causes Court at Sealdah in Ejectment Appeal No. 3 of 2016 is set aside. The
12
2026:CHC-AS:364
Ejectment suit being No-113 of 2005 instituted before 1st Civil Judge (Junior
Division) Sealdah and thereafter transferred and re-numbered as. Ejectment
Suit No. 91 of 2014 before Learned Civil Judge Junior Division) Additional
Court Sealdah stands dismissed. It is however made clear that this Court has
not gone into the merits of the case and rights of the parties, and all points
with regard to merits are kept open to be raised by the parties before the
Controller. It is further made clear that as plaintiff was pursuing a suit before
Civil Court from 2005 till today this pendency will be considered as a ground
for condoning delay if any before the respective forum.
The Trial Court Record be sent back.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, should be
made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)