JUDGMENT : Sanjib Banerjee, J. The only ground urged in assailing the order impugned is that the trial Court was apparently oblivious to Section 44 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 that exclusively parks certain matters pertaining to tenancies with the Rent Controller and expressly prohibits civil courts from entertaining "any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to fixation of fair rent in relation to any premises to which this Act applies or to any other matter which the Controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide." 2. The opposite parties have filed a suit seeking a declaration as to tenancy and in such suit have applied for repair of the suit premises. The petitioners herein claim that since essential repairs to any tenanted premises are covered by Section 35 of the said Act of 1997, the application made by the opposite parties has, therefore, to be regarded as a matter which the Controller is empowered under the said Act to decide on; and, as a consequence, the civil court would not have the authority to entertain such application. 3. It is now beyond question that where a suit for eviction is pending and eviction is sought on any of the grounds under Section 6 of the said Act of 1997, it is open to the defending tenant to seek either leave of the trial Court or a direction from the trial Court on the landlord for repairing the tenanted premises and the like. Matters covered under Section 35 of the said Act of 1997, notwithstanding Section 44 of the said Act, are, thus, capable of being carried before a civil court; and the bar under Section 44 has to be read down in case of matters where the civil court is already in seisin of an action pertaining to the tenanted premises. 4. There is very good reason for the exception to Section 44 being carved out. 4. There is very good reason for the exception to Section 44 being carved out. While it is accepted that independent proceedings in respect of matters which the Controller is empowered to decide on under the said Act of 1997 cannot be carried before a civil court, Section 44 of the said Act of 1997 cannot preclude an interlocutory application pertaining to matters that apparently fall within the exclusive domain of the Controller under the said Act of 1997 to be made before the civil court in seisin of a larger action. The exception is supported by the legal principle that when an action is already pending before a judicial forum - and such judicial forum is a civil court, no less - all matters pertaining to the property in question should be confined to the forum and not carried elsewhere. It is a matter of public policy and the exception carved out promotes the larger principle of avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings. 5. A question may then arise, as insinuated by the petitioners herein, that a civil suit may be needlessly filed with the objective of only applying therein for repairing the suit premises. 6. It is not inconceivable that such a situation may arise, particularly considering that the Rent Controllers in and around this city are overburdened and many matters are entertained daily by this Court seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of the applications before the Rent Controllers. 7. It may be presumed, for argument's sake, that the action initiated by the opposite parties herein before the trial court is to obviate the delay before the appropriate Rent Controller in making an application for repair and a contrived suit seeking a declaration of tenancy has been filed with the ulterior motive of merely applying for a direction to repair the suit premises. 8. If the civil court, which is the natural repository of all claims which are civil in nature, has the authority to receive an action - never mind that it is a contrived action - the civil court has the attendant jurisdiction to decide on interlocutory matters, notwithstanding Section 44 of the said Act of 1997. It cannot be doubted that if a suit is filed for the declaration of a tenancy and consequential injunction, an application for repairing the suit premises will be in the aid of the reliefs claimed in the suit. 9. It cannot be doubted that if a suit is filed for the declaration of a tenancy and consequential injunction, an application for repairing the suit premises will be in the aid of the reliefs claimed in the suit. 9. The matter may be seen from a philosophical and constitutional perspective. A forum, which is the natural forum for any civil action, has to be regarded as having all incidental authority to comprehensively deal with the lis before it. A forum which is the creation of a particular statute has only such authority as is conferred to it and may not have the residuary authority to deal with matters that are not expressly recognised by the statute to be capable of being carried before it. In the constitutional scheme of things, the business of adjudication is the exclusive prerogative of that wing of the State that goes by the name of judiciary. While it has become fashionable for outsourcing judicial work - with even the wisest in the judiciary being apparently indifferent thereto - the jurisdiction of the civil court is to be zealously guarded as a basic tenet of the constitution and as an inviolable feature of the rule of law that governs this constitutional democracy. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the issue canvassed by the petitioners does not appeal. 11. C.O. 3163 of 2014 is dismissed. 12. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.