D/L- 17 13/08/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 2638 of 2026 Pranati Sengupta Vs. Jagadish Bose Ms. Writi De Ms. Riya De ….for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order dated July 2, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.226 of 2025. By the order impugned the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected and the learned judge framed three questions to be decided as preliminary issue. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the opposite party is a monthly premises tenant under the petitioner and such tenancy is guided by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. She further submits that the opposite party has not filed any application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act. The learned advocate for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the reply to the notice to quit issued by the plaintiff/petitioner herein in support of her contention that the opposite party admitted that the tenancy is governed under the 1997 Act. 2 After going through the impugned order, this Court finds that the opposite party filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of plaint on the ground that the learned trial judge lacks jurisdiction to decide the instant suit for eviction as the suit property is a thika property governed under the provisions of the West Bengal Thika (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001. The learned trial judge after rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure took note of the objection raised by the defendant/opposite party and opined that such objection strikes at the root of the jurisdiction of the learned trial judge to decide the said suit and accordingly framed three issues to be decided as preliminary issues. After considering the materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that since the objection raised by the defendant/opposite party goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the trial court the same should be decided at the threshold and the learned trial judge was right in framing the preliminary issues. For such reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, CO 2638 of 2026 stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)