SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.

In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenge is thrown by the petitioner/decree holder/plaintiff to the judgment and order dated 3rd September, 2013 in Title Execution Case No. 5 of 2012 passed by the Learned 4th Civil Court (Junior Division) at Alipore.

The short facts of the case are as follows:-

(a) That the petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction praying, inter alia, for a declaration that she is a tenant in respect of the suit premises and cannot be evicted without due process of law.

(b) The said suit being Title Suit no. 2612 of 2009 culminated into a Compromise Decree between the parties. The parties also entered into Terms of Agreement which were made part of the Decree.

(c) Order no.9 dated 1st June, 2010 decreeing the suit on Compromise between the parties under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC) reads, inter alia, as follows:-

"It is ordered that the suit be decreed in terms of the petition of compromise in so far as they relate to the subject matter of the suit. The petition of compromise and the agreement in between the parties be made part of the decree. Parties to bear their own costs."

(d) The joint petition of compromise filed by the parties under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC at paragraph 6 thereof reads, inter alia, as follows:-

"That the instrument for agreement, prepared by the parties unanimously containing essential and unavoidable terms and conditions for all the parties of the suit, has been filed hereto should be part and parcel of the compromise decree for proper adjudication of the matter and to avoid all complications and disputes in future between the parties and/or their heirs, successors etc."

(e) Paragraph 7 of the said Compromise petition reads as follows:-

"That in pursuance with the petition for compromise and in compliance with the terms and conditions incorporated in the said Agreement the parties herein put their respective hands for implementation of the amicable settlement for development of the entire property including the suit property."

(f) At paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said Compromise petition the following is pleaded:-

"8. That under such change circumstances it would be meaningless to proceed with the said suit for declaration and permanent injunction unnecessarily at the cost of wasting of the Learned Court's valuable time.

9. That the parties hereby undertake with averment that they would pay necessary Court fee abiding by the behest of the Ld. Court.

In the above facts and circumstances, it is therefore prayed that Your Honour would graciously be pleased to pass compromise decree making the petition, Instrument of Agreement as part and parcel of the compromise decree for legalization of the amicable settlement for development of the suit property."

(g) The Instrument of Agreement dated 14th May, 2010 signed by all the parties namely, the petitioner/plaintiff, the opposite parties 1 to 6 owners of the suit property and opposite party nos. 7 and 8 the developers of the suit property reads, inter alia, as follows:-

"The owners hereby admit and acknowledge the Second Part herein as a bonafide monthly tenant under them in respect of a portion of premises no. 57A, Nepal Bhattacharya First Lane (within P.S. - Kalighat), Kolkata - 700026 consisting of three rooms, one kitchen, one open verandah, one bath-cum-privy etc. at a monthly rental of Rs. 80 (Rupees eighty only) payable according to English calendar month and the owners are acknowledging the said monthly rent from the Second Part herein.

And whereas the owners (Parties of the First Part) entered into an agreement for development of the premises no. 57A, Nepal Bhattacharya First Lane (within P.S. - Kalighat), Kolkata - 700026 with the Third part (the Developers) herein on 29th December, 2008 on the terms and conditions recorded therein.

(h) The said Instrument of Agreement, inter alia, also contains the following clau