The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Municipal Commissioner to delegate powers under Section 48(3)(b) of the Municipal Corporation Act.

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.

By the impugned order No. 14 dated 5th February, 2016 passed by the learned Judge, XIIIth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction was allowed by the learned Trial Judge.

2. The following order was passed by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order:-

"It is ordered that the defendant Debashis Mullick being the owner of the suit premises and the Kolkata Municipal Corporation are hereby restrained from evicting the plaintiff Manoj Kumar Dutta without following due process of law. It is further clarified that the Municipal Commissioner is only authority of the KMC to issue notice under Section 401 of the KMC Act, but no one else. There is no Building Rules and Notification by State Government authorising the Municipal Commissioner to delegate power on any authority possessing a decree in civil and structural or construction engineering having five years in field of design and constructions of structure of building of different types. The assistant engineer or sub-assistant engineer having no structural specialisation cannot say about the structural condition of R.C.C. of the building."

3. The instant appeal was admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 25th July, 2016. Today when the application for stay filed in connection with the said appeal was being considered by this Court, we were requested by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to dispose of the appeal itself on merit.

4. Since the papers which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are available before us, we have decided to dispose of the appeal by dispensing with the requirement of filing paper books in this appeal.

5. Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the present case.

6. Two suits are pending before the learned Trial Court. One of such suits was filed by the appellant herein against the respondent no.1 for his eviction. It was claimed by the appellant therein that the respondent no.1 is a trespasser in the suit property. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 6 of 1995. The other suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 herein seeking declaration of his tenancy right in respect of the suit property. In the said suit, not only the appellant herein was added as a defendant but the municipal authorities were also added as defendants therein. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 46 of 2015. Both the aforesaid suits are pending in a common court i.e. 13th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta.

7. In the declaratory suit filed by the respondent No. 1 herein, he filed an application for temporary injunction for restraining the defendant/opposite parties from demolishing the suit premises and/or any part thereof till the disposal of the suit. Temporary injunction was also sought for against the appellant herein for restraining him from ousting the respondent No. 1 from his lawful tenancy i.e., the suit premises during the pendency of the suit. Ad interim relief in similar form was also prayed for by the respondent No. 1 in his said application.

8. It was stated therein that he being a lawful tenant in the suit premises cannot be evicted from the suit premises otherwise than in due course of law. It was also alleged in the said application that the Municipal authority has no right to demolish the suit premises. The legality of the demolition notice which was served upon the respondent No. 1 was also challenged in the said application for temporary injunction.

9. The learned Trial Judge while dealing with the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction held that since the demolition notice was not issued by the Municipal Commissioner, the entire proceeding for demolition was vitiated as the authority which initiated such proceeding for demolition was not vested with such authority under the Act. The learned Trial Judge held that there is no provision under the Kolkata Mu