BIJAY KUMAR MANISH KUMAR HUF versus ASHWIN DESAI
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1214, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1214                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
BIJAY KUMAR MANISH KUMAR HUF
v.
ASHWIN DESAI
(Civil Appeal Nos. 12025-12026 of 2018)
DECEMBER 12, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Suit – Maintainability of – Appellant-landlord filed suit for
recovery of khas possession, mesne profits, permanent injunction
against the respondent – Respondent filed application u/Or.VII, r.11
CPC and claimed rejection of plaint on ground of non-issuance of
statutory notice u/s. 6(4) of West Bengal Tenancy Act, 1997 –
Application was dismissed by the Trial Court –  However, in revision
it was allowed by the High Court – Appellant contended that they
were governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 as lease executed between the respondent and the erstwhile
landlord was executed in 1992 when the West Bengal Tenancy Act,
1997 was not in force and the same cannot have retrospective effect
– Whether the West Bengal Tenancy Act, 1997 or the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 applies – Held: This dispute could be resolved
by framing an issue by the trial Court on the said point and by
adjudicating the same as a preliminary issue – Since, the suit was
still in the preliminary stage, the trial Court could be directed to
frame issue, relating to maintainability of suit and applicability of
enactments and decide the same in accordance with law – West
Bengal Tenancy Act, 1997 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 12025-
12026 of 2018.
From the Judgment and final Orders dated 15.11.2016 and
20.07.2017 of the  Calcutta High Court in C.O. No.3348 of 2016 and in
R.V.W 377 of 2016 respectively.
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 12029-12030 of 2018
Civil Appeal Nos. 12031-12032 of 2018
Civil Appeal Nos. 12027-12028 of 2018
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1214
1214
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1215
Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Ganesh Shaw, Kunal Chatterji,
Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Saurav Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant.
Siddharth Bhatnagar, Ms. Sonia Dube, Debdut Mukherjee,
S. Chakraborty, Ms. Kanchan Yadav, Ms. Harshita Verma (for M/s Legal
Options),  Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N. V. RAMANA, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Heard Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior counsel appearing
for the appellant and Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent.
4. These four appeals are filed against the orders dated 15/
17.11.2016 and 20.7.2017 passed by the Calcutta High Court. The
appellant before us is landlord ofa building which is the subject matter of
lease. This building was leased bythe erstwhile owner, NanjeeShamjee&
Comp.(lessor) to the respondent (lessee) for a period of 99 years at
Rs.350/- per month via a Registered Lease Deed on 20.11.1992. Later,
on 30.8.1996 the appellant purchased the entire premises of the disputed
property from the erstwhile owner via a Registered Deed of Conveyance.
Thus,the appellant stepped into the shoes of the said lessor.
5. On account of default in payment of lease money, a suit, viz.,
Title Suit No.2450 of 2007 was instituted by the appellant before the XI
City Civil Court, Kolkata for recovery of khas possession, mesne profits,
permanent injunction and other reliefs. The respondent had filed an Order
VII, Rule 11 CPC application for rejection of
plaint which was dismissed
by the trail court on 03.02.2015 and again by High Court in revision on
31.03.2015. A second application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC was
filed by the respondent claiming that plaint ought to be rejected for non-
issuance of statutory notice under Section 6(4) of West Bengal Tenancy
Act, 1997.  This was dismissed by the trial court on 18.08.2016. However,
the revision petition against this was allowed by the High Court on
15.11.2016 and it is against this that the present appeal is filed.
6. The contention raised by the appellant is that they are governed
by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 because the lease
was executed in 1992 when the West Bengal Tenancy Act, 1997 was
not in force and the same cannot have retrospective effect. On the
BIJAY KUMAR MANISH KUMAR HUF v. ASHWIN DESAI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1216                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
other hand, the respondent contended that the suit was filed on 06.09.2007
when the West Bengal Tenancy Act, 1997 was in force.
7. Thus, the question involved in these appeals is whether the
West Bengal Tenancy Act, 1997 or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
applies.
8. This dispute can be resolved by framing an issue by the trial
court on the said point and by adjudicating the same as a preliminary
issue.
9. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, since the suit is still in the preliminary stage, we dispose of
the appeals directing the trial court to frame the issue, relating to
maintainability of suit and applicability of enactments, as mentioned supra,
and decide the same in accordance with law as a preliminary issue as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from
the date of communication of this judgment.
Ankit Gyan
Appeals disposed of.