SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

The plaintiffs’ interlocutory application and a contempt petition are so inescapably connected that they have been taken up together; but separate orders are made. The suit as originally brought to this Court was for eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent and alleged damage to the property. The plaint has long been amended to incorporate a further ground on account of alleged sub-letting. The plaintiffs’ principal grievance in their latest interlocutory application is of the defendant attempting to change the nature and character of the tenanted premises. The immediate purpose of the application is indicated in the last fifteen or so paragraphs of the petition. Though a part of the plaintiffs’ petition suggests construction work of a permanent nature being carried out at the demised premises by the defendant without notice to the plaintiffs, the application was meant to be somewhat of a shot in the dark angling for bigger things.

The contempt petition has been subsequently filed on the charge of violation of interlocutory orders passed in the suit. During the pendency of both matters, a special officer has visited the premises pursuant t