16.09.2025 Item No.35 Ct. No.01 Saikat FA/302/2025 with IA NO: CAN/1/2025 UTTAM GHOSH @ DABU GHOSH AND ORS. VS. RAM PADA GOSWAMI Mr. Anirban Roy, Adv. …For the Appellants Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Souvik Das, Adv. Mr. K. Raihan Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Rudranil Das, Adv. …For the Respondents 1. The suit for eviction of a legal heir of a bharatia is a subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. Admittedly, the predecessor of the present appellants was a bharatia under the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001. He continued to remain till he died on 26th November, 2006. The aforesaid Act in section 8(1) made the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, applicable in matters relating to the payment of the rent by the bharatias and their eviction by the thika tenants. However, section 8(2) states that if a question arises whether a bharatia under a particular thika tenant, the Controller, either on his own motion or upon receiving any information, shall enquire upon and decide such question in the manner therein. 2. In order to ascertain whether the Controller has jurisdiction under section 8(2), as is being urged by the 2 appellant, the pleadings have to be carefully perused. In the written statement it has been categorically stated that the father of the appellant was a bharatia. The question, therefore, arises whether for the purpose of the eviction of the legal heirs of the bharatia the provision of section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 would apply. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the issue under section 8(2) can be raised dehors pleading. 4. However, we are unable to accept the said submission in view of the fact that issues are required to be framed either on the basis of pleadings or documents unless it appears to the Court that the assumption of jurisdiction is clearly bar on an ex facie reading of the plaint. In each case the Court can suo motu reject or return the plaint, as the case may be. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a decision of a co-ordinate Bench in Imtiazul Haque vs. Reyaz Ahmed @ Wasim and Ors., FAT 257 of 2023, decided on 1st September, 2023, to argue that in paragraph-13 it is enunciated that since the appellant was claiming rights of occupation of a thika property essentially and only through his late father, the original bharatia, the Thika Controller was indeed authorised to decide upon the eviction upon the appellant and accordingly, the order of the Thika Controller dated 29th July, 2022, was held to be incorrect. However, the said proceeding was not under 3 challenge before the co-ordinate Bench and the said issue was not dealt with. In the instant case, having regard to the fact that there is no dispute as to the factual aspect of the matter, mainly that the father of the present appellant was a bharatia. No question is required to be made by the Controller with regard to the present status of the appellant as he admittedly is a legal heir of the bharatia, would be entitled to occupy the suit premises for a period of five years provided he is dependent upon the original bharatia and the suit was admittedly filed upon expiry period of five years. 6. On such consideration, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial court. 7. Hence, the appeal and the pending application are dismissed. 8. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. [SOUMEN SEN, C.J.(ACTING)] (APURBA SINHA RAY, J.)