Judgment:
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the Order No.15 dated August 4, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division) nd Court, Sealdah, in Ejectment Suit No.151 of 2008, thereby rejecting an application under Order 14 Rule 2 of the C.P.C.
2. The plaintiff opposite party herein instituted a suit for eviction, recovery of possession, injunction and other reliefs in respect of the premises as described in the schedule of the plaint against the opposite party on the ground of default, causing damage to the premises, reasonable requirement etc. before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2 nd Court, Sealdah. The defendant is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint.
3. The defendant filed an application under Section 7 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and that application is still pending. The defendant Company also filed another application under Order 14 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. raising the question of maintainability of the suit and that application was rejected by the impugned order holding that the matter involves a mixed question of law and facts. Being aggrieved by such orders, this application has been preferred.
4. Now, the point is whether the impugned order should be sustained.
5. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the petitioner filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff is not the full owner of the premises in suit. There are other landlords who also received rents from the tenant. The Paragraph No.10 of the written statement lays down that there are four land-ladies, namely, Smt.Bani Bose, Smt. Reba Basu Mallick, Smt.Krishna Bose and Smt.Sumita Modak and that premises in suit has not been partitioned and the other owners have also been collecting rents in respect of their shares in the suit premises.
6. I have stated above that suit for eviction is also on the ground of default and an application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act is still pending. So in course of the disposal of the application under Sections 7(2) of the 1997 Act, the question of ownership and the question of landlord/tenant relationship between the parties is likely to come. For that reason, I am of the view that the said application should be disposed of first. Thereafter, the question of maintainability of the suit on the ground as stated by the defendants could be taken up if the situation demands.
7. During the argument Mr. A. Kar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party submits that a landlord can well file a suit for ejectment on behalf of all the landlords. In support of his contentions Mr. Kar has referred to the decision of Mahindra Prasad jian Vrs. Manohor Lal Jian reported in AIR 2006 SC 1471, and thus, he submits that the suit in the present form is quite maintainable. He also submits that before the disposal of this application an observation should be made as to the maintainability of the suit.
8. With due respect to Mr. Kar, I am of the view that if I decide the question of maintainability of the suit in exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the object of coming to any decision under Sections 7(2) of the 1997 Act and the application under Order 14 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. may be frustrated. Since, the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act has not yet been disposed of, I am of the view that the finding of the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order is a prematured one.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order should be set aside. The learned Trial Judge should be directed to dispose of the application under Section 7 (2) of the 1997 Act, first and thereafter, he shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
10. In that view of the matter, the revisional application succeeds. It is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the application under Sections 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 within two months from the date of communications of this order. Thereafter, he shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
11. It is further clarified that the above observations are made for the purpose of the disposal of this revisional application and that the learned Trial Judge, while dealing with the suit shall dispose of the suit without being influenced by my above observations.
12. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
13. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.