Calcutta High Court: In a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of Presidency Small Cause Court to try an ejectment suit under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (W.B. Premises Tenancy Act), a single-judge bench comprising of Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee,* J., dismissed the petitioner’s challenge to the Presidency Small Cause Court’s jurisdiction, affirming the validity of Section 12A of the W.B. Premises Tenancy Act and emphasizes the need for legislative amendments to clarify jurisdictional matters between the two Acts.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 19-03-2019 issued by the Judge, Presidency Small Cause Court in ejectment suit initiated by the landlords (opposite parties), seeking the eviction of the petitioner (defendant/tenant) from the suit premises. The petitioner, upon receiving the summons, filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) seeking the return of the plaint. The petitioner contends that the Presidency Small Cause Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to try the ejectment suit based on various grounds related to the W.B. Premises Tenancy Act. The opposing parties, as plaintiffs, filed written objections against the petitioner’s application and the lower court rejected the petitioner’s application with costs after a contested hearing.
Moot Point
-
Whether the Presidency Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to try an ejectment suit under the W.B. Premises Tenancy Act?
-
Whether the amendment under Section 12A of the W.B. Premises Tenancy Act confers jurisdiction on the Presidency Small Cause Court?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner argued that Presidency Small Cause Court’s jurisdiction is limited by the Presidency Small Cause Court Act, 1882, excluding certain categories of suits. It was contended that Section 6 of W.B. Premises Tenancy Act specifies “Civil Judge having jurisdiction” to try eviction suits and Presidency Small Cause Court, not being a Civil Judge, lacks jurisdiction under W.B. Premises Tenancy Act. The petitioner also questioned the constitutional validity of Section 12A and Schedule IV, arguing that the same confers jurisdiction not granted by the Presidency Small Cause Court Act, 1882.
Court’s Assessment
The Court, after considering the arguments, affirmed the jurisdiction of the Presidency Small Cause Court based on the amendment introduced by Section 12A and Schedule IV of the W.B. Premises Tenancy Act. The Court emphasised that the non-obstante clause in Section 12A overrides conflicting provisions in the CPC and the Presidency Small Cause Court Act, 1882. The Court noted that the legislature, by using the non-obstante clause, clarified its intention to confer jurisdiction upon the Presidency Small Cause Court for suits under the W.B. Premises Tenancy Act. The Court suggested the legislative amendments for incorporating jurisdictional provisions in the Presidency Small Cause Court Act, 1882, aligning it with the W.B. Premises Tenancy Act.
Court’s Decision
The Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Presidency Small Cause Court to try ejectment suits under the W.B. Premises Tenancy Act. The Court dismissed the petitioner’s challenge and exempted the petitioner from the costs imposed by the lower court.
[Krishna Guha v. Shurid Dey, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 258, order dated 10-01-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Kasinath De, Mr. Sandip De and Mr. Amit Chowdhury, Counsel for the Petitioner
Buy Constitution of India HERE
