Civil courts retain jurisdiction over eviction suits against trespassers occupying thika tenanted property.

The petitioner, claiming to be the legal heir of the original bharatiya of the respondent’s thika tenancy, instituted Title Suit No. 530 of 2018 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Additional Court of Sealdah.

The respondent, admittedly the thika tenant, filed a counterclaim seeking the petitioner’s eviction from the suit property. By order dated 11 September 2025, the trial court allowed the counterclaim to proceed. The petitioner challenged that order in revision, contending that disputes concerning eviction of a bharatiya from thika tenanted premises fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Thika Controller under Sections 8(3) and 21 of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 (“2001 Act”).

The respondent argued that the counterclaim was for eviction of a trespasser, not a bharatiya, because the petitioner’s statutory tenancy as the heir of the original bharatiya had expired five years after his predecessor’s death on 27 July 2013, i.e., on 27 July 2018.

1. Whether the petitioner, as the legal heir of the deceased bharatiya, continued to possess the status of a bharatiya after expiry of five years from the date of his predecessor’s death.

2. Whether the respondent’s counterclaim for eviction was a dispute concerning eviction of a bharatiya, falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Thika Controller under Sections 8(3) and 21 of the 2001 Act, or an ordinary civil claim for eviction of a trespasser.

3. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the counterclaim.

The Court applied Section 8 of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001, which regulates the relationship between thika tenants and bharatias, with Section 8(3) conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Thika Controller over disputes concerning eviction of a bharatiya; Section 21 further bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters entrusted to the statutory authorities.

Section 8(1) makes the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 applicable to matters concerning rent and eviction of bharatias.

Under Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act, a person who remains in possession without a subsisting legal right may be treated as a trespasser.

The Court relied on Seema Begum v. Marrium Bibi, which recognised the Thika Controller’s exclusive authority in proceedings for eviction of a bharatiya; Md. Jamil Akhter v. Abdul Majid, Asit Chatterjee v. Kanai Lal Das, and Sri Manik Das v. Promila Das, which establish that a civil suit for eviction of an outsider or trespasser from thika tenanted premises is not barred by Sections 8(3) or 21 of the 2001 Act.

The Court held that the petitioner’s statutory right as the heir of the original bharatiya lasted only for five years after the predecessor’s death. Since the original bharatiya died on 27 July 2013, the petitioner’s statutory status expired on 27 July 2018, after which he could not claim protection as a bharatiya under the 2001 Act.

Consequently, the respondent’s counterclaim was characterised not as a proceeding for eviction of a bharatiya, but as a claim for recovery of possession from a trespasser.

The jurisdictional bar under Sections 8(3) and 21 applies only to disputes between a thika tenant and a person possessing the statutory status of a bharatiya or tenant; it does not extend to an action against a trespasser.

Such a claim remains within the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil court, as the Thika Controller lacks statutory authority to adjudicate a pure claim of tortious trespass or grant a decree for recovery of possession against a trespasser.

It found no jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity in the trial court’s order dated 11 September 2025.

The revision was accordingly dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed expeditiously with the suit and counterclaim, uninfluenced by the observations made in the revisional judgment.