Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharyya Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Mr. Saunak Bhattacharya
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Partha Pratim Roy : Mr. Chandranath Sarkar

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court: The Civil Court's jurisdiction is not barred from entertaining applications for the appointment of a Local Inspection Commissioner to assess the condition of premises or to determine the urgency of repairs (!) (!) .

2. Application for Repairs: When a tenant files an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for permission to repair premises, the Civil Court can exercise its jurisdiction if the Commissioner’s report indicates an urgent need for repairs (!) (!) .

3. Scope of the Act: The relevant provisions of the applicable tenancy legislation do not explicitly or impliedly exclude the Civil Court’s jurisdiction in cases involving repair and inspection applications. The Act primarily pertains to rent fixation and related matters, and does not prohibit the Civil Court from addressing repair issues (!) (!) .

4. Power of Civil Court vs. Authority under the Act: The Civil Court has inherent powers to issue commissions for local inspection and to pass orders for repairs, which are not within the powers of the Rent Controller or authorities under the Act (!) (!) (!) .

5. Nature of the Suit: The filing of a suit for declaration of tenancy rights is a civil matter, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court remains intact even when related applications for inspection or repairs are made (!) (!) .

6. Concurrent Proceedings: The existence of a pending civil suit does not preclude the tenant from seeking inspection or repair orders from the Civil Court, as such proceedings are not mutually exclusive and avoid multiplicity of proceedings (!) (!) .

7. Final Position: The Civil Court’s jurisdiction to entertain applications for appointment of a Local Inspection Commissioner and to order repairs is affirmed. When the Commissioner’s report indicates urgency, the Court can pass appropriate orders to ensure premises are maintained in a proper condition (!) (!) .

8. Conclusion: The revisional application challenging the lower court’s order was dismissed, and the original order was upheld, confirming the Civil Court’s authority to handle repair and inspection applications under the circumstances described (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this document.