DWARIKA NATH ACOOLI versus DULAL CHANDRA BAYEN AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 28 · Decided: 06-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009) 1 S.C.R. 28 
DWARIKA NATH ACOOLI 
v. 
DULAL CHANDRA BAYEN AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.7 of 2009) 
JANUARY 6, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.) 
Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) 
C 
Rules, 1981 - r.3(a) - Thika tenancy - Respondent claimed 
to be Thika tenant - Filed Return before Thika Controller in 
terms of r.3(a) - Thika Controller provisionally accepted the 
Return -
Appellant, claiming to be owner, made 
representation before Thika Controller - Representation not 
D considered for long time - In writ petition, High Court directed 
Thika Controller to dispose of the representation of appellant 
- Conclusion of Thika Controller that respondent was not 
Thika tenant - Upheld by Appe!!ate authority - Writ petition 
by respondent - Allowed by High Court holding that 
E 
respondent was Thika tenant - Held: High Court wrongly 
proceeded on the basis that there was cancellation of tenancy 
and as if the Thika Controller was moved for cancelling the 
order recording the tenancy - On the Return, no order was 
passed - Hence, order of High Court set aside and revenue 
F 
authority directed to decide the matter - Calcutta Thika 
Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 - s.5. 
G 
Appellant claimed to be owner of the property in 
question and filed suit seeking eviction of respondent, 
whom he had purportedly inducted as a monthly tenant. 
Respondent claimed to be a Thika tenant and filed 
Return before the Thika Controller in terms of r.3(a) of the 
Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) 
Rules, 1981. The Thika Controller provisionally accepted 
H 
28 
..... 
' 
DWARIKA NATH ACOOLI v. DULAL CHANDRA BA YEN 
29 
AND ORS. 
the Return. Appellant raised objection before Thika A 
Controller. The objection was not considered for long 
time, on which appellant filed writ petition. High Court 
disposed of the writ petition directing the Thika Controller 
to dispose of the representation of appellant. The"Thika 
Controller concluded that respondent was not a Thika B 
tenant which was upheld by the Appellate authority. 
Respondent filed writ petition. High Court allowed the 
same holding that respondent was a Thika tenant. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
.. 
c 
HELD: The High Court seems to have proceeded on 
the basis that there was cancellation. It noted as if the 
Thika Controller was moved for cancelling the order 
recording the tenancy. As a matter of fact there was no D 
cancellation and there was a provisional order. There was 
no question of preferring an appeal unless the final order 
was passed. On the Return, no order was passed. The 
Thika Controller and the Appellate Authority came to 
positive finding that respondent No.1 was not a Thika E 
tenant. They took decision on the basis of the High 
Court's order to deal with a representation of the 
appellant. In view of the aforesaid, the order of the High 
Court is set aside and the revenue authority is directed 
to decide the relevance of the Return filed by respondent F 
and pendency of the eviction suit filed by the appellant. 
As the Return is in terms of r.3, the revenue authority has 
to decide the matter. (Paras 7 and 8] (35-G-H; 36-A-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7 
of 2009. 
G 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.2.2004 of the 
High Court of Calcutta in W.P.L.R.T. No. 29 of 2003. 
Bhaskar Gupta and Shipra Ghose for the Appellant. 
H 
30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
{2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
S.K. Bhattacharya, Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam Sharma 
7 
and Rajiv Sharma for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 
Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowing the writ petition filed 
by the respondents. Challenge in the writ petition was to the 
judgment and order passed by the West Bengal Reforms and 
c Tenancy Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') whereby the earlier writ 
petition filed by the respondents was dismissed. 
3. Background facts, as projected by appellant, in a 
nutshell, are as follows: 
D 
Originally, one Durga Bala Acooli, the predecessor-in-
interest of the appellant was the owner of the premises being 
18/1, Ramesh Mitra Road, Kolkatta. In terms of the final decree 
passed in Suit No.467 of 1970 the Calcutta Hjgh Court, the 
appellant claimed to have become the absolute owner of the 
E suit property. The aforesa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.