Harish Tandon, J. By raising a plea of res judiciata, the petitioner assailed the judgment and order dated July 18, 2011 passed by Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No. 384 of 2007 in this revisional application.

The facts which emerges from the respective stands of the parties are etymolized hereinbelow:

In the plaint of the Title Suit no. 7 of 2007 filed before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, 3rd Additional Court, Alipore, the plaintiffs/opposite parties assets that their predecessor-in-interest namely Naryan Chandra Jana since deceased was the original tenant under one Purnendu Sekhar Basu in respect of one brick walled tin shed room on the ground floor at Premises No. 26/1, Gobinda Bose Lane, P.S.- Kalighat, Kolkata700 025 at a monthly rental of Rs. 12/- according to English Calendar. The said deceased paid rent to the said landlord up to the month of November, 1984 and after his demise, the rent was paid by the plaintiffs/opposite parties to the said landlord up to the month of May, 1995, but he did not grant any receipt.

Subsequently, it is brought to the notice of the plaintiffs/opposite parties that the defendant no.1/petitioner acquired the right, title and interest of the suit premises from the said landlord by dint of purchase. The rent was sought to be tendered to him but he refused to accept the same. It has alleged that on May 16, 2006, the petitioner along with two unknown persons approached the plaintiffs/opposite parties and asked for vacating the suit premises and on refusal, they threatened to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs/opposite parties therefrom. In the aforesaid backdrop, the plaintiffs/opposite parties prayed for declaration of the tenancy right and permanent injunction restraining the defendant/petitioner from demolishing and/or making any disturbances and/or interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit property. An application for injunction was also filed praying for an order of temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from demolishing and/or making any disturbances or interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the opposite parties in respect of the suit property and/or from making any attempts to oust them without due process of law.

Having moved the said application for interim order on May 19, 2006, the Trial Court refused to pass an ad interim order of injunction. Subsequently, an application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was taken out by the plaintiffs/opposite parties praying for an appointment of the Advocate Commissioner for holding the inspection of the property which was eventually allowed. The Commissioner filed the report which is on record. Alleging the further threat by the petitioner to vacate the premises on November 7, 2006, an application under Section 151 of the Code was filed making the identical prayer as that of the injunction application. In the written objection to the said application, the petitioner took the specific defence that neither the predecessor nor the plaintiffs/opposite parties were/are the tenant in respect of the suit premises. The said application was taken up before the injunction application and was dismissed with the following observations namely (i) the petition is not maintainable because of the pendency of the injunction application (ii) the ad interim order was refused in an application for injunction, no further order could be passed in the said application (iii) no document is filed in support of his claim as tenants in respect of the suit premises and neither prima facie, has been made out nor the balance of connivance and in connivance lies in favour of granting injunction.

Thereafter, an application for injunction was taken up and it appearsfrom the order passed by the Trial Court that no written objection to the said application for injunction was filed by the petitioner.

The Trial Court held that the plaintiffs/opposite parties have not prod