Siddhartha Chattopadhyay JUDGMENT
Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.
1. This revisional application is directed against the Order No. 10 dated 30.08.2014 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Baruipur. In the said impugned order, the Learned Court below has partly allowed the petition under Section 151 of CPC filed by the plaintiff-tenant.
2. Being aggrieved at it the petitioner/defendant has filed this revisional application mainly on the ground that the Learned Court below failed to appreciate the position of law and exceeded his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity and thus came to an erroneous finding that the condition of the suit room is a dilapidated one. Ventilating her such grievances she had prayed for rejection of the said impugned order.
3. A very interesting point of law is involved in this case. Factual aspects being not disputed, this Court does not like to reiterate the same because it would be an unnecessary parade of words.
4. In the instant case the tenant/plaintiff has filed a suit praying for a declaration of his tenancy right along with other reliefs. The petitioner/landlord appeared there as defendant.
5. The tenant/plaintiff had prayed for appointment of Local Inspection Commissioner for establishing his claim that the suit property is in a dilapidated condition. The said commissioner has submitted his report which is partially in favour of the tenant/plaintiff. Thereafter the tenant/plaintiff has filed an application under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and prayed for giving him a permission to repair the suit premises.
6. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/landlady has submitted that in view of amendment of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 and as amended time to time, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application because as per Section 44 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act jurisdiction of Civil Court is totally barred. So he has prayed for interference of this Court. In support of his contention he has referred to two decisions reported in MANU/SC/0370/1987 : AIR 1988 Supreme Court (SC) 752 (Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava Vs. Union of India) and a decision reported in MANU/SC/0157/1968 : AIR 1968 Supreme Court (SC) 78 (Dhulabhai Vs. State of M.P.). Referring these two citations he has submitted that Civil Court's Jurisdiction is completely ousted in such type of cases. In the interest of effective adjudication of this controversy, I like to quote the views of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in connection with the decision reported in MANU/SC/0370/1987 : AIR 1988 SC 752 is concerned. "Generally speaking the broad guiding considerations are that wherever a right, not pre-existing in common law, is created by a statute and that state itself provided a machinery for the enforcement of the right, both the right and the remedy having been created 'Uno Flatu' and a finality is intended to the result of the statutory proceeding, then, even in the absence of an exclusionary provision the Civil Courts Jurisdiction is impliedly barred."
7. The spirit of the decisions reported in MANU/SC/0157/1968 : AIR 1969 Supreme Court page 78 is such where the statute gives a finality to the order of the special tribunals, the Civil Court's Jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Courts would normally do in a suit.
8. As against this Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party/tenant has citied three decisions which is reported in [2006] 3 CHN 213, [2007] 2 CLJ 546 and