Can a Civil Court Adjudicate Thika Tenancy and Eviction Between a Thika Tenant and Bharatia Despite a Statutory Bar and Struck-Out Defence?

Civil court lacks jurisdiction under Sections 5, 8 and 21 of the 2001 Act; defendant’s struck-out defence does not preclude raising tenancy dispute; upholds Synthetic Plywood Industries and binds all subordinate civil courts in West Bengal.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Civil courts have no jurisdiction over Thika-tenancy questions or eviction between a Thika tenant and Bharatia once Controller proceedings under the 2001 Act are pending or decided.
• Section 21 of the 2001 Act creates an express subject-matter bar, not merely procedural, extinguishing civil-court authority.
• A tenant’s defence struck out under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act does not preclude raising landlord-tenant or Thika tenancy disputes if properly pleaded or argued before judgment.
• Trial courts must determine jurisdiction at the outset; jurisdictional objections cannot be deferred until after merits hearing.
• Appellate courts can and should admit subsequent Thika Controller orders under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) for complete adjudication.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. Statutory scheme:
   • Sections 5(3) & 8(2) of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy Act, 2001 confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Thika Controller to decide any “question as to” Thika tenancy.
   • Section 21 bars civil courts from “deciding or dealing with” matters required to be or already decided by the Controller.
2. Defence-striking procedure under 1997 Act:
   • Section 7(3) mandates striking out defence of “tenant” (not “defendant”) for failure to deposit or apply in time, but courts must first decide if the party is a “tenant” at all.
3. Precedents:
   • Synthetic Plywood Industries (P) Ltd. v. Manjulika Bhaduri & Others [(1998) 1 CHN 387] requires courts to decide landlord-tenant relationship before striking out defence.
   • Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo [(1988) 4 SCC 619] limits cross-examination to plaintiff’s case but permits jurisdictional challenges.
4. Procedural power:
   • Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) empowers appellate courts to admit Controller orders for full adjudication.
5. Application:
   • The Lower Courts erred by hearing merits and deciding Thika tenancy despite pending Controller proceedings and no Section 7 order striking out defence.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Landlord/Appellant)

• Non-compliance with Sections 7(1)/(2) of the 1997 Act mandates striking out of tenant’s defence and precludes any tenancy defence.
• Trial Court correctly decided tenancy issue on merits after striking out defence.
• Controller’s later order is irrelevant to civil-court proceedings.

Respondent (Tenant/Bharatia)

• Civil court lacks jurisdiction under Sections 5, 8 & 21 of the 2001 Act to decide Thika-tenancy or eviction.
• Struck-out defence does not extinguish jurisdictional or tenancy objections.
• Subsequent Thika Controller order confirms tenancy and precludes civil-court decree.

Factual Background

Plaintiffs filed an eviction suit under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, alleging rent default and reasonable requirement. The defendant neither deposited rent nor filed a Section 7 application. Trial Court framed issues, decided on merits that the property was not a Thika tenancy, and granted eviction. First Appellate Court held non-compliance with Section 7(2) non-fatal when tenancy disputed and remanded for fresh trial. Meanwhile, the Thika Controller adjudicated in Misc. Case 14 of 2013 that the respondent is a Thika tenant.

Statutory Analysis

• West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (Section 7): mandatory deposit/application by a “tenant”; Section 7(3) strikes out defence if tenant defaults, but only after deciding if party is a tenant.
• West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001:
  • Section 5(3) & 8(2): exclusive Controller jurisdiction over any question “as to” Thika tenancy or Bharatia status.
  • Section 21: express bar on civil courts preventing them from deciding or questioning matters within Controller’s domain.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

• No separate dissent. Justice Uday Kumar concurred fully with Justice Bhattacharyya’s reasoning and conclusions.

Procedural Innovations

• Clarification that appellate courts must admit and consider Thika Controller orders under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) when triggered during appeal.
• Emphasis on early determination of jurisdictional bars under Sections 5, 8 & 21 of the 2001 Act before any merits hearing.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – Synthetic Plywood Industries (P) Ltd. v. Manjulika Bhaduri & Others
• 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Lower civil courts proceeded despite statutory bar
• 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Expands scope of Section 21 bar and defence-striking doctrine under Section 7 of the 1997 Act

Citations

• Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo, (1988) 4 SCC 619, ¶28
• Synthetic Plywood Industries (P) Ltd. v. Manjulika Bhaduri & Others, (1998) 1 CHN 387, ¶36
• M/s Calcutta Bonemiles & Fertilisers Ltd. v. M/s Organochem (P) Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Cal 4147
• Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors., (2024) 4 SCC 696
• N. Natarajan v. Executive Officer, Chitlapakkam Town Panchayat, AIR 2015 (NOC) 1305
• Charu Diesels LLP & Ors. v. E.L. Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (unreported)
• Deep Chand Hirawat & Ors. v. Smt. Kamala Devi Chowdhary & Ors., C.O. 3681/2022
• Smt. Bina Devi Binani v. Ramesh Kumar Gupta (since deceased) By Smt. Kiran Gupta, (2016) 5 CHN 376
• Arun Prakash Saha v. Asit Baran De & Anr., (2017) 1 Cal LJ 615