Judgment 1. THIS Misc. appeal is director against the order dated 25/7/79 passed by Shri R. Banerjee, Judge, 9th bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit NO. 1087 of 1977 holding that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit and directing return of the plaint to the filing lawyer for presenting the same before the appropriate court on the ground that the came to the finding that the defendants were thika tenants and not the tenants of the suit premises to attract the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 2. THE plaint case is that Satya Charan Mondal and Pashupati nath Mondal, the predecessors-in-interest of the present defendants, were the joint tenants under the plaintiff - the joint owners and the landlords of the premises. After the demise of Satyacharan and Pashupati, the defendants had jointly inherited the tenancy and were joint tenants under the plaintiffs in respect of the tenancy comprising, the premises No. 15b, golak Dutta Lane, P. S. Jorasanko, Calcutta - 7 at a monthly rental of Rs.42/- only payable according" to Bengali Calendar. The plaintiffs determined the defendants' tenancy by a combined ejectment notice dated 17th February, 1977. Inspite of the due service of ejectment notice the defendants failed and neglected (to quit, vacate and make over the vacant possession of the premises. As such the plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree for eviction and khas possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendants there from and also for a decree for mesne profit on and from the first day of Baisakh 1384 B. S. till the defendants were evicted in due course of law. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement contending, inter alia, that their predecessors- in- interest Satyacharan and Pashupati constructed huts in the suit land owned by the plaintiffs and became thika tenants under the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs issued rent receipts for ground rents describing the rents as khajna. 3. THE learned Judge settled 4 issues and subsequently added the 5th issue which is "has this court, jurisdiction to try the suit" and he took up this as a preliminary issue to be decided. 3. THE learned Judge settled 4 issues and subsequently added the 5th issue which is "has this court, jurisdiction to try the suit" and he took up this as a preliminary issue to be decided. After examining the witnesses for both sides he came to the finding that the defendants were thika tenants and not tenants under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and, therefore, he directed the plaintiffs to file the suit before the appropriate authority which means the Controller under the Calcutta thika Tenancy Act, 1949. 4. BEING aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the plaintiffs have come of in this appeal. The only point for decision is whether the defendants are thika tenants under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act of 1949 or they are tenants under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1936. We have scrutinised the evidence on record both oral and documentary. The defendants have admitted that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land but they have stated that their predecessors -in- interest were tenants in respect of the land only under the predecessor- in- interest of the plaintiffs. As heirs they have succeeded to the tenancy in respect of the land. Their dwelling houses were constructed by their predecessors- in- interest and they assert that their predecessors took the tenancy of the vacant land only. However, no convincing evidence is forthcoming from the defendants that the houses were constructed by their predecessors- in- interest and in fact there is no written document to show that the tenancy was in respect of the land only. However, the defendants have produced the counterfoils of the rent receipts Ext. 'c series in which the names of Satyacharan and Pashupati are shown in the column for 'praja' and not in the column for 'bharatia'. Then again in the receipts filed by the plaintiffs Ext. 3 series the word 'bharatia' printed on them was deleted while in the subsequent" rest receipts for the year 1372 B. S. the printed words 'praja Bharatia' etc Were left untouched. From the above, it will be seen that although the evidence on both sides, is scanty, the pre-ponderance of evidence is in favour of the defendants that they are only thika tenants. 5. THERE are other documents relied on by the plaintiffs. These are Ext. A to Ext. From the above, it will be seen that although the evidence on both sides, is scanty, the pre-ponderance of evidence is in favour of the defendants that they are only thika tenants. 5. THERE are other documents relied on by the plaintiffs. These are Ext. A to Ext. A (3) which are copies of entries in the assessment book of the Calcutta Corporation in respect of the suit premises for the years 1913-14, 1919-20 and 1937-38 and also Ext. B to B (3) which are corporation bills. But the learned Judge has rightly held that "there is no prosecution of correctness attached to the entries in the assessment books of the Corporation of Calcutta and the mere fact that entries therein are in conformity with the testimonies of the parties who have testified before me cannot decide the question whether the land was let out or the premises". However, the learned Judge erred in law in holding that 'the certified copy of the inspection book Ext. 1 supports the case of the defendants'. 61 CWN 175 (Jitendranath Joardar v. Makhanlal Chowdhury) is a pointer to this. The learned single Judge (Lahiri, J.) handing down the Rule held that the document described as Inspection Book of lands and Buildings maintained by the Corporation of Calcutta is not a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence act and therefore a certified copy of the: document from that inspection book is not admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. We are in respectful agreement with the views of the learned single Judge. 7, Any way, from the evidence on record we have found and already held above that the pre-ponderance of evidence is in favour of the defendants/respondents and that they are thika Tenants in respect of the land and not tenants in respect the premises and therefore the learned judge did not commit any error in law in ordering the return of plaint. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.