20.01.2026 Ct. No. 30 S.L. No. 41 SM CO 891 of 2024 M/s. Safal Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. Versus Lok Nath Choudhary & Anr. Mr. Amritlal Dhar Mr. Subhasis Dey Mr. Victor Mukherjee ………for the petitioner Mr. Biswajit Konar Mr. Arijit Mahinder ……for the opposite party/plaintiff 1. The revision has been preferred challenging an order no. 83 dated 04.12.2023 passed by the ld. 2nd Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore in Ejectment Suit No. 27 of 2013. 2. Vide the order under challenge the Trial Court has allowed the plaintiff’s application under Section 7(3) of the WBPT Act on contest. 3. It is the case of the petitioner herein that admittedly he was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit premises. Subsequently, the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 filed an eviction suit against the defendant no. 1/petitioner herein being Title Suit no. 27 of 2013. 4. It is the case of the defendant/petitioner herein that on 08.03.2016, he purchased 50% of the undivided share in the suit property and as such it is his case that he has become a co-owner of the property and as such he cannot be evicted from the same. 5. It is further stated that since his purchase, the petitioner is no more a tenant but a co-owner and as such the suit for eviction is not maintainable. As such the defendant/petitioner did not file any application 2 under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the WBPT Act and the Trial Court was wrong in allowing the application under Section 7(3) of the WBPT Act. 6. It is further stated by the parties that a suit for partition in respect of the suit property which includes the suit premises, has been filed being Title Suit No. 1083/2019 before the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 1st Court, Alipore and it is submitted by the defendant/petitioner that unless and until the partition suit is decided, the Court cannot proceed with the eviction suit. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has purchased only 50% of the tenanted premises in the year 2016. The suit for eviction was filed in the year 2013, when the defendant/petitioner herein was prima facie a tenant in respect of the total suit premises and the suit for eviction was filed under the WBPT Act, 1997. 8. Considering that the defendant/petitioner herein is still a tenant in respect of 50% of the said suit premises and was a tenant in respect of the total premises when the suit for eviction was filed, the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is applicable to the suit before the Trial Court. 9. Both parties have filed their written notes of argument. 10. The plaintiff/opposite party has relied upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in reported in 2025(2) Indian Civil Cases 566 (Cal.) CO 3758 of 2024, Ashis Chandra Das versus Krishna Kumar Bhagat & Anr. 3 11. Accordingly, this Court finds that as admittedly the defendant/petitioner herein have not preferred an application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the WBPT Act, the Trial Court’s order allowing the application under Section 7 (3) of the WBPT Act is in accordance with law and requires no interference by this Court, in view of the observations made above. 12. Considering the fact that the premises in the present case is common/and part of the property in the partition suit, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. divn.), 1st Court, Alipore, the eviction suit no. 27 of 2013 pending before the learned 2nd Civil Judge (Jr. divn.), be transferred and heard along with the title suit for partition being no. T.S. 1083/2019, by the learned Civil Judge (sr. divn.), 1st Court, Alipore. 13. Accordingly, the eviction suit being no. 27 of 2013 is withdrawn from the file of the learned Civil Judge (jr. divn.) 2nd Court, Alipore and transferred to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (sr. divn.), 1st Court, Alipore, to be heard simultaneously by the transferee Court. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned District Judge, Alipore, Civil Judge (sr. divn.), 1st Court, Alipore and Civil Judge (jr. divn.) 2nd Court, Alipore. 15. CO 891 of 2024 is disposed of. 16. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently. 17. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 4 18. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. [Shampa Dutt (Paul). J]