BISWANATH SOMADDER,SANKAR ACHARYYA,J. - (1.)Respondents as plaintiffs filed Civil Suit (C.S.) No. 142 of 2013 against appellant as defendant for eviction from suit premises measuring an area of 9725 square feet situated at 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700001 after service of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, determining the tenancy. Respondents/plaintiffs claimed that they are the joint owners of the suit premises and the appellant/defendant was a tenant under them at a monthly rent of Rs. 12278/-. The appellant/defendant appeared and prayed for time to file written statement. The respondents/plaintiffs filed an application, being G.A. No. 2883 of 2013, under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this High Court for final judgement in their favour as they believed that there was no defence against their claim in that suit.
(2.)Upon receiving summons of said application, the appellant/defendant filed affidavit against respondents/plaintiffs' prayer for final judgement. Appellant/defendant challenged maintainability of the suit alleging misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of parties and also challenged the legality of the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as well as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Appellant/defendant contended that in the suit premises there are two separate and distinct tenancies where appellant/defendant is tenant. In premises measuring 6670 square feet in Udyog Building at a monthly rent of Rs. 8421/- appellant/defendant is tenant under plaintiff no. 1 and in another premises, measuring 3055 square feet in PPL building at a monthly rent of Rs. 3857/-, the appellant/defendant is a tenant under plaintiff no. 2. Therefore, appellant/defendant's tenancy in each of those two premises is governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and the jurisdiction of this High Court to entertain the suit is excluded. There is a categorical denial of the appellant/defendant against the respondents/plaintiffs' claim of joint ownership in the suit property. Appellant/defendant prayed for dismissal of respondents/plaintiffs' application under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules.
(3.)Appellant/defendant filed a supplementary affidavit, annexing copies of challans showing deposit of rent before the Rent Controller, Kolkata, in favour of each of the respondents/plaintiffs. Respondents/plaintiffs filed a supplementary affidavit in reply refuting the appellant/defendant's plea. They also referred to two letters of the year 1969 as proof against defence plea. In that affidavit, respondents/plaintiffs referred to some other documents as evidence in support of the plaint case. With leave of the Court, the appellant/defendant filed a supplementary affidavit as rejoinder against the supplementary affidavit of plaintiffs. In that rejoinder, appellant/defendant re-affirmed its earlier plea and alleged that the letters of the year 1969 - which were referred by the respondents/plaintiffs - were forged and fabricated.