Subalane Majumder vs Kamal Kumar Roy

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

This revisional application is directed against an order whereby the defendant/petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the trial court.

The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the dispute pertains to transfer of a Salt Lake (Bidhannagar) property and belongs to the government and, as such, the provisions of the West Bengal Government Land (Regulation of Transfer) Act, 1993 applies. By placing special reliance on Sections 3 and 15 of the said Act as well as Section 21 of the Act, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding anything contained in that Act or in any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and the Indian Contract Act, 1872 shall not apply to such transfers.

By placing reliance on Section 15 of the 1993 Act, the learned advocate for the petitioner argues that where a lessee makes any transfer of government land held by him on lease to any person, not being the State Government or Government Undertaking, in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the lease shall determine forthwith, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any instrument in this behalf and the State Government shall re-enter the premises. The learned advocate for the petitioner argues that Section 21 of the 1993 Act provides a bar to civil courts relating to any matter as envisaged in the said Act of 1993.

The learned advocate for the petitioner cites a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Waman Shriniwas Kini vs. Ratilal Bhagwandas & Co., reported at A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 689, regarding what would be the effect of a non-obstante clause. It is, thus, argued that a suit for eviction of the petitioner in respect of a property covered by the 1993 Act before a civil court was squarely barred by law and, as such, the plaint ought to have been rejected.

The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite party submits that the bars cited on behalf of the petitioner do not apply in this case, since the suit was for eviction of a licensee and not of a lessee, as envisaged under the said Act.

It appears from a perusal of the plaint that, on a plain and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is evident that an agreement for leave and license was entered into by and between the parties and the suit is for eviction of licensee and, thus, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act do not apply in any event. Moreover, the bar stipulated in Section 15 read with Section 21 of the 1993 Act is also not applicable in view of no lease agreement having been entered into by and between the parties, as is evident from the plaint.

It is well-settled that, for deciding an application for rejection of plaint, only a plain and meaningful reading of the plaint is necessary and other materials cannot be gone into.

In such circumstances, the trial court was justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since on the basis of the plaint it can be inferred readily that a suit for eviction of a licensee, and not a lessee, was filed, which falls outside the purview of the 1993 Act.

Accordingly, the revisional application bearing C.O. 3418 of 2019 is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the applicant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites.