(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) THESE proceedings arise from a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act which was filed by the respondent as per the judgment of the High Court, The respondent in his suit stated that he was using the garage owned by the appellant, his sister. The contention was that he had been dispossessed from the garage by his sister.

(3) THE trial court ordered possession to be restored but on an application filed under Section 115-A of the Civil Procedure Code, the District Judge allowed the said application filed by the applicant (appellant herein). The order of the trial court was set aside. This order was sought to be challenged by a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the Calcutta High Court and the decision of the trial court had been restored.

(4) WITHOUT going into the question of law we are of the opinion that under Article 227 the High Court ought not to have exercised its discretion and interfered with the judgment of the District Judge. It is evident that the respondent was using the garage of the appellant on permission having been granted by the sister to the brother. According to the judgment of the High Court the respondent was claiming no legal interest in the said garage as he was not claiming its ownership because he was not claiming to be a tenant or even a licensee. His possession was purely gratuitous and even if without the knowledge of the respondent the appellant has reclaimed the possession, it was not a fit case for the High Court to have interfered under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(5) WE, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the decision of the District Judge.