PRASENJIT MANDAL, J.

(1). THIS application under Article 227 of the constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant/petitioner and is directed against the judgment and order no. 13 dated July 14, 2006 passed by the learned Chief Judge, city Civil Court, Calcutta in Civil Revision Case No. 15 of 2005 (wrongly recorded as Civil Revision Case No. 25 of 2005 by the defendant/petitioner) affirming the order no. 95 dated May 11, 2005 passed by the learned Judge, Chief Bench, Presidency Small Causes court, Calcutta in ejectment suit no. 2866 of 2000.

(2). THE facts necessary for the purpose of the present revisional case in short are that the plaintiffs/opposite parties instituted the Ejectment Suit No. 586 of 1991 before the City Civil Court, calcutta against the defendant/petitioner on the ground of default, subletting, commission of an act of nuisance and annoyance to the neighbours etc. In that suit the defendant/petitioner was contesting by filing a written statement of defence. The suit was at the stage of recording evidence and at that time the plaintiffs/opposite parties tendered evidence of examination in chief by way of an affidavit. Thereafter the plaintiffs/opposite parties stated that the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 of that suit died and their names be deleted. Orders were passed accordingly. Then the plaintiffs/opposite parties prayed for striking out the names of the renumbered plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 and to substitute the two names namely, Sri Gopaldas Bangur and Hemant bangur, in place thereof as the former two plaintiffs resigned from the Board of Trustees and thereafter the Board of Trustees co-opted the two new trustees as stated. They also prayed for change of address of the Board of Trustees. In the meantime, the ejectment suit was transferred to the Court of the Presidency small Causes Court at Calcutta and it was renumbered as Ejectment suit No. 2866 of 2000. The learned Judge, Presidency Small Causes court allowed the application by the order no. 95 dated May 11, 2005 against which the defendant/petitioner preferred a revisional application before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, calcutta. By the impugned judgment and order no. 13 dated July 14, 2006 the learned Chief Judge dismissed the civil revision application as being not maintainable. So the defendant/petitioner has preferred the present writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3). ON consideration of the submission of the learned Advocates for the defendant/petitioner and on consideration of the materials-on-record, I find that the plaintiffs/opposite parties filed the suit for eviction on the ground of default, sub-letting and an act of nuisance and annoyance. The defendant/petitioner was contesting the suit and that suit was at the stage of peremptory hearing before the City Civil Court. The plaintiffs/opposite parties tendered evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs by way of an affidavit. Thereafter the plaintiffs/opposite parties filed an application for deleting the names of the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 from the cause title of the plaint on the ground of death and that application was allowed expunging the names of the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2. The remaining plaintiff nos. 3 to 5 were continuing the suit before the City civil Court and they filed fresh evidence of examination in chief by way of an affidavit before the City Civil Court. Thereafter the suit was transferred to the learned Judge, Fifth Bench, presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta. The plaintiffs filed fresh evidence of examination in chief. Thereafter the two applicants, namely Sri Gopaldas Bangur and Hemant Bangur filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating, inter alia, that the renumbered plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 had resigned from the Board of Trustees of Gouri Devi Trust and they had been co-opted as new trustees in place of the plaintiff nos. 2 and 3. They also stated that the address of the said tru