N THE COURT OF THE LD.

T.S.No.-

. of

. CIVIL JUDGE ,( Sr.Dv) at ALIPORE

.

. Chakraborty
..Plaintiff
VS
.
Defendant
An application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w section 151 of CPC
That the plaintiff has filed this suit purportedly for eviction of the defenda
nt and for damages.
That primarily the allegations of the plaintiff is that the father of the plaint
iff-Late Sivaji Sen, Director of M/S PEC Boilers(Pvt)Ltd was the originak tenant
and he undertook before hs untimely death to vacate the suit premises by the ye
ar 2003.
That it is the further case of the plaintiff that as the original tenant having
not extended the tenancy before his death, the said tenancy comes to end with hi
s death on
.
That it s the further case of the plaintiff that the rate of rent of the suit pr
emises having been more that Rs 6500/-, he is not eligible for protection under
West Bengal Premises of Tenancy Act and he is liable to be evicted under the pro
vision of section 106 of Transfer of Property Act.
That the plaintiff has further contended that he has already sent a notice deter
mining the tenancy u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and hence the instant
suit has been filed under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act.
That the plaintiff on the other hand has categorically contended in his pleading
vide paragraph no.11 that the defendant is not a tenant. The relevant portion o
f the pleading has been reproduced here as followsThat the defendant hs left t
he said premises and has been residing elsewhere and in all material times the p
ortion of the said tenancy is lying vacant thereby he has no legal right to occu
py the premises and cause inconvenience to the plaintiff. More so, at no point o
f time the defendant asked the plaintiff to transfer the tenancy in his name and
nor he has paid or tendered full amount of rent thereby there is no landlord-te
nancy relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant is the
reby occupying the suit premises in an unlawful manner.
That the plaintiff has also stated in his pleading that the defendant is illegal
ly occupying the suit premises as a trespasser. Therefore according to the plain
tiff the defendant is a trespasser.
That on the basis of the unequivocal contention of the plaintiff that the defend
ant s not a tenant at all and there is no relationship of landlord and the tenan
t, this suit has got no legs to stand.
That the plaintiff having conceded the defendant as not a tenant, rather a tresp
asser, the present sut for eviction of the defendant under the Provision of Tran
sfer of Property Act is totally barred by law.
That because of this contention the present suit for eviction of the defendant d
oes not disclose any cause of action.
That on the bare perusal of the pleading of the plaintiff it becomes quite clear
that the plaintiff does not consider the defendant as a tenant and on the cont
rary he has clearly contended that such relationship is absolutely absent betwee
n the parties herein. According to the plaintiff the defendant is rather a tresp
asser.

That if that being the case of the plaintiff then the present suit under the pro
vision of the Transfer of Puppetry Act can not surely be maintainable as having
not only barred by law but also having disclosing no cause of action to sue the
defendant under the provision of the Transfer of Property Act.
That it is the established principle of law that while considering the question
of rejection of plaint, the court needs to peruse the plaint only and on bare pe
rusal t becomes quite clear that the plaint does not disclose any cause of actio
n ro is barred by law then the court need not look into any other document and t
he suit should be nipped in the bud.
That while considering this aspect the court should be careful to look beyond th
e clever drafting and see on the root of the case as to whether the plaintiff ah
s any cause of action or not. The provision of rejection of plaint has been enac
ted to discourage the litigants from flooding the courts with frivolous and vexa
tious claims. Whenever the court even on its own motion finds a suit to be defic
ient in having a cause of action, such suit should be can rejected so that ther
e is no more any abuse of the process of the court.
That the court can reject a plaint at any stage of proceeding if it is satisfied
that the conditions of the provision is satisfied. Clever drafting creating an
illusion of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue mu
st be shown in the plaint. Moreover the power under order 7 rule 11 is not exhau
stive and the court has got inherent powers to see that the vexatious litigation
s are not allowed to take or consume the time of the court. It is needless to su
bmit that the provision for rejection of plaint is mandatory and the court is bo
und to act if the plaint is found to be lacking in cause of action or debarred t
o proceed ahead by any provision of law.
That if that being the position in law then in the context of pleading of the pl
aintiff this suit can not be allowed to proceed ahead and the plaint should be r
ejected having disclosing no cause of action to sue under the provision of Trans
fer of Property Act.
That the present petition s bona fide and for ends of justice.
That the petitioner would be prejudiced if the prayer for rejection of plaint is
rejected . For ends of justice this petition be allowed.
In the circumstances mentioned above it is therefore be prayed that your honour
be pleased to reject the plaint as provided for under the provision of order 7 r
ule 11 of cpc. And to pass such other order as deemed fit and proper.
A F F I D A V I T

s/o
., aged about 32 years , by faith hindu, by profession
I Sri
do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows:-

business , resi

That I am the plaintiff of this case and as such I am fully conversant with the
facts and circumstances of the same.
That the statements mentioned above are true to my knowledge and belief.
Deponent
Identified by me
Advocate
http://devajyotib.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/rejection-of-plaint-petition/