The jurisdiction to execute a decree for eviction under Section 13(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 lies with the trial court that passed the decree, and not with the rent controller, where the decree is passed in terms of the judgment and directions of the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - Challenging order nos. 171 dated 11.02.2020 and 172 dated 05.03.2020 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Execution Case No. 85 of 2008, present application under section 227 of the constitution of India has been preferred. Petitioner contended that the petitioner as owner/land lord had filed seven separate suits against the then existing tenants of the suit building before the learned City Civil Court, Calcutta, and the opposite party herein was defendant/tenant in one of such eviction suits, which got dismissed by the Trial Court. Appeal was preferred before this court and the appeal was also dismissed. However the Hon'ble Supreme court passed decree for eviction on the ground of building and rebuilding. Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the decree of eviction on 05.04.2007 under section 13(1) (f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (herein after called as Act of 1956) and directed the trial court to expeditiously pass decree and consequential orders in terms of section 18A of the Act of 1956, within three months. The petitioner states pursuant to the aforesaid direction the learned judge of City Civil Court, Calcutta passed a decree on 27.11.2007 directing the plaintiff/petitioner to obtain the sanctioned plan from the concerned authority and to produce the same to the court and to serve copy of the sanctioned plan to the tenants preferably within a period of three months from the date of the order and defendant /opposite party herein was directed to vacate the suit premises within one month from the date of receipt of production of the sanctioned plan by the plaintiff and plaintiff was directed to put back possession to the tenants in reconstructed building within one year from the date of delivery of possession by the tenants to the plaintiff and in case of any neglect or failure to delivery of possession of the shop room, either by the tenants/defendants or by the land lord/plaintiff within the stipulated period as mentioned in the body of the judgment, possession will be delivered by putting the decree into execution on an application made by either of the parties.

2. Petitioner submits that the petitioner obtained revised sanction plan from the concerned authority and produced the same to the court, serving the copy of the sanction plan to the tenant on 23rd April, 2008. Petitioner further submits that the judgment debtor/opposite party herein failed to deliver possession of the suit premises in utter violation of the aforesaid decree within time and on the contrary had initiated various frivolous proceedings by challenging the decree and after expiry of near about eight years, by filing the present Ejectment execution case no. 85 of 2008, the seal bailiff delivered possession of suit shop room only on 26th April 2016 with the help of police. The petitioner further submits that the petitioner got vacant possession from all other tenants only on 30th August 2017 and pursuant to the said decree passed by the learned City Civil Court, Calcutta, the decree holder is to give back possession within one year from the date of handing over possession of the tenanted shop room. Accordingly opposite party herein /tenant in order to get back possession from landlord/petitioner in terms of decree filed an application before the learned executing court in the execution case filed by present petitioner for fixing a date for delivery of possession to execute the decree passed on 23rd November, 2007, in Ejectment suit no. 480 of 1988 and for necessary directions to be issued upon the seal bailiff of the court to execute the decree by giving possession to the defendant in respect of it's tenancy of 290 square feet.

3. The petitioner states that he filed objection denying and disputing the contents of said application and contended that the proceeding initiated by the opposite party is a premature application interalia on the ground that the constructio