9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of the city civil court to entertain and try the present suit. Analysis: The appeal arose from a suit for ejectment and mesne profits regarding premises No. 8, Baithakhana Second Lane, contested by defendant No. 2, a sub-tenant, with the tenant being a company in liquidation. The trial court dismissed the suit citing lack of jurisdiction, despite some findings favoring the plaintiffs on certain issues. The key issues were ownership of the premises, validity of the ejectment notice, entitlement to mesne profits, and khas possession. The main issue was whether the city civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial judge held that the city civil court lacked jurisdiction due to the pendency of liquidation proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956, giving exclusive jurisdiction to the court. However, the appellate court disagreed, stating that the city civil court's primary jurisdiction was not ousted by the Companies Act. The court analyzed the legislative history and found that the city civil court had jurisdiction before the enactment of the City Civil Courts Act in 1953, and subsequent Acts transferred jurisdiction to the city civil court. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court was concurrent, not exclusive, and did not oust the city civil court's jurisdiction. The court further explained that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and its amendment in 1957 transferred jurisdiction to the city civil court, affirming its authority to entertain the suit. The court concluded that the city civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit and overturned the trial judge's decision, directing a fresh decision on the merits. The court emphasized expediting the further hearing of the suit and made no order for costs. In conclusion, the High Court held that the city civil court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, rejecting the trial judge's decision and sending the case back for a fresh decision on the merits.
|
