( 1 ) THIS revisional application is one under Article 227 of the Constitution of india and is directed against order No. 7 dated 28. 03. 2005 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, (being Additional Controller, sealdah) Sealdah in ejectment case No. 265 of 2004.

( 2 ) THE said suit was brought by the present Opposite Parties against the present petitioners for eviction of tenant from the property in question.

( 3 ) IN the said case the plaintiffs/petitioners filed one application under section 39 (6) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 with prayer for temporary injunction against the Opposite Parties. In that application grounds were duly mentioned so that the Court can pass appropriate order on the basis of the said application.

( 4 ) THE present Opposite Parties contested the said application by filing written objection.

( 5 ) BY the order impugned, the learned Additional Rent Controller allowed the application and restrained the present petitioners from using the entrance door on the North excepting at the time of using the meter box if required that too with prior permission of the petitioners.

( 6 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the learned additional Rent Controller, the instant revisional application has been preferred by the present petitioners.

( 7 ) MR. Asish Bagcht, learned Counsel for the petitioners challenged the order on the following grounds : -

i) That the order in question is nullity as the officer, who passed the order impugned was not vested with power as per provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. ii) That in Section 39 (6) of the said Act no specific provision has been made regarding granting of temporary injunction as the grounds were not specified there. iii) That the notification dated 30. 4. 2004 will go to show that Mohitosh dutta was empowered under the Act to try the cases and before that one Sutapa Saha was empowered as per notification dated 11. 3. 2003. iv) That the door in question can never be treated as "property" and the Court committed error in passing order of injunction with respect to using of the said door by the present petitioners.

( 8 ) THE said pleas were strongly opposed by Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties, who contended that the present revisional application is not maintainable as the grounds of jurisdiction was not taken before the Court below. It was the further contention of Mr. Chatterjee that the present petitioners accepted the jurisdiction of the Court at the time of hearing before the Court below and as such he cannot challenge the same before this revisional Court.

( 9 ) IT was the further contention of Mr. Chatterjee that the officer concerned. e. M. Das was vested with power and the report of the learned registrar, Judicial Service will corroborate the same.

( 10 ) LET us now consider the pleas as raised by the learned lawyer for the parties.

( 11 ) MR. Bagchi, relied upon the notification dated 30. 04. 2004 and on the basis of the same he contended that one Mohitosh Dutta, Civil Judge, junior Division was empowered to deal with Rent Control cases and his name appears against. No. 6.

( 12 ) MR. Bagchi, further contended that before that one Sutapa Saha was entrusted to deal with Rent Control cases vide order dated 11. 3. 2003. Accordingly, it was the contention of Mr. Bagchi that the order impugned was passed by an officer who was not entrusted with the power as per the said Act.

( 13 ) IT should be stated here that on the basis of submission of the parties, a report was called for from the Registrar General and the report of the registrar, Judicial Service dated 5. 5. 2007 goes to show that Sri Mahananda das (M. Das) was posted as Civil Judge, Junior Division, Additional Court, sealdah on 28. 3. 2005. e. on the date when the impugned order was passed and he was authorized by notification dated 21. 1. 2004 to deal with Rent Control cases.

( 14 ) THE s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document