JUDGMENT : - Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. : This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated April 16, 1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 279 of 1994 thereby affirming order dated August 31, 1994 passed by the Thika Controller, Howrah in connection with a proceeding in respect of holding No. 535, G.T. Road (South), Howrah. 2. Jugal Kishore Show, since deceased, the opposite party No.1 herein claiming to be a bharatia under Mozammal Hossain and others filed an application before Thika Controller alleging that one "Seal Babu" was the owner of the land and Sk. Wajed Ali, the predecessor of Mozammal Hossain and others was the thika tenant under the "Seal Babu". The grand-father of Jugal was a bharatia under Sk. Wajed Ali and he was in possession of the property by way of inheritance of the tenancy right. According to the opposite party No.1, the present petitioner claiming to have purchased the property was disturbing the possession of the opposite party No. 1. Hence the application for protecting his interest. 3. The Thika Controller gave notice to the petitioner who disputed right, title and interest of the opposite party No.1 and claimed to be the owner of the land as well as structure. The allegation of thika tenancy was also disputed. 4. On the basis of such application; the Thika Controller framed the following issues :- (1) Is the subject matter a thika one? (2) What is the legal position of the suit premises as on 18.1.1982? (3) Is Jugal Kishore Show a premises tenant under thika tenant? (4) Has any transfer been made' by thika tenant in violation of section 6(3) of the Act ? 5. Thika Controller after hearing the parties concluded that the subject matter was a thika one and accordingly answered issues No.1, 3 and 4 in affirmative. 6. Being dissatisfied the petitioner preferred an appeal being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 279 of 1994 and the learned Additional District Judge by the order impugned has affirmed the findings recorded by Thika Controller. 7. After hearing Mr. Banerjee in support of the application and Mr. 6. Being dissatisfied the petitioner preferred an appeal being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 279 of 1994 and the learned Additional District Judge by the order impugned has affirmed the findings recorded by Thika Controller. 7. After hearing Mr. Banerjee in support of the application and Mr. Maity appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 and after going through the materials on record I find that the initiation of the proceeding by the Thika Controller at the instance of the opposite party No.1, an alleged bharatia and the consequent order passed thereon was without jurisdiction and as such the learned Additional District Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in approving such order. 8. In my opinion, if the possession of a bharatia under an alleged thika tenant is disturbed by a third party claiming to be the owner of land and structure and disputing the status of such bharatia, such aggrieved person is required to file a suit in the Civil Court for declaration of his title and permanent injunction. The Thika Controller cannot give him any remedy. The only provision, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Banerjee, in the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 ("Act") which enables a bharatia to file application before Thika Controller is section 11(2) of the Act under the circumstances provided therein and the Thika Controller can pass appropriate order under sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) thereof. 9. As regards the issue No. 4 framed by the Controller viz. whether there has been a transfer in violation of section 6(3) of the Act, it appears from section 7(2) of the Act that for transfer in violation of section 6(3) of the Act, the land and structure will vest in the State in accordance with the prescribed procedure. According to section 3(6) of the Act, "prescribed" means prescribed by rules under the Act. 10. Rule 4 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Rules, 1982 is in this connection relevant and is quoted below :- "Authority under section 6(3).-(1) For the purpose of sub-section (3) of section 6, the following shall constitute the authority in respect of an area within the jurisdiction of a Controller ;- (i) the Controller, (ii) a representative nominated by the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority, . (iii) a representative nominated by the Calcutta Improvement Trust, if the area is within the limits of Calcutta as defined in Clause (11) of section 5 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (West Ben. Act XXXIII of 1951), or the Howrah-Improvement Trust, if the area is within the limits of the Municipality of Howrah, (iv) a representative nominated by the Corporation of Calcutta, if the area is within the limits of the Corporation of Calcutta or the Municipality of Howrah, if the area is within the limits of the Municipality of Howrah, and (v) a representative nominated by the Land and Land Reforms Department of the Government of West Bengal. (2) The approval of the majority of the members of the authority present at a meeting of the authority shall be deemed to be the approval of the authority within the meaning of sub-section (3) of section 6 of the Act. (3) Two members of the authority shall be a quorum for a meeting of the authority. . (4) The Controller shall be the convener of the authority." 11. Therefore, even for the purpose of disposal of such a dispute, the Controller alone is incompetent to pass appropriate order. Therefore, Issue No. 4 can be decided only by an authority constituted under Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the Act as quoted above. 12. Over and above, in the Act, the Controller has not been vested with the authority to decide whether a person is a thika tenant or not. Therefore, adjudication of such a question by the Thika Controller is beyond the scope of the Act. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, the orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge as well as Thika Controller are set aside. The revisional application is allowed. No Costs. Revisional application is allowed.