IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that inherent powers of the court should supplement, not replace, remedies provided in the law. The court emphasized the need for immediate relief in cases of illegal dispossession and the limitations of inherent jurisdiction when there is no exigency.

JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impeaches the order dated 1st August, 2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipurduar in Title Suit No. 552 of 2015. By the order impugned learned Trial Court in exercise of inherent power conferred under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure directed the Officer-in-charge, Jaigaon Police Station to ensure proper implementation of order of status quo passed by learned Trial Court while disposing off the petition for injunction and also to ensure restoration of possession of the plaintiff to the suit property and to submit a report of compliance.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity the parties would be referred to as they have been arrayed before the learned Trial Court.

3. Briefly stated, the plaintiff Dinesh Prasad Jaiswal filed the suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants registered as Title Suit No. 552 of 2015, contending, inter alia, that the defendant no. 1 inducted the plaintiff as tenant in respect of suit property at monthly rental of Rs.3000/-per month which was increased from time to time and last paid rent amount was Rs.15,000/-per month which was tendered by the plaintiff, but defendant no. 1 refused to accept the rent for the month of June, 2015 when offered.

4. It is further contended that on or about 10th October, 2010, pursuant to an agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as security deposit and it was agreed the defendants would reconstruct the property, accommodate the plaintiff and the said amount would be returned to the plaintiff at the time of surrender of tenancy. But the defendants failed to act in terms of such agreement which led the plaintiff to issue a notice upon the plaintiff on 19th March, 2015.

5. On 22nd June, 2015, the defendants in collusion with each other forcibly removed CI sheets from the roof of the verandah of the suit property in absence of the plaintiff, disconnected the electric line with a view to evict him from the suit property. On 4th July, 2015, the defendant again came and asked him to vacate the suit property. There was a threat of forcible dispossession. Hence by filing the suit the plaintiff prayed for declaration as to his status as tenant under the defendant no. 1 and for injunction coupled with other relief.

6. By way of amendment, the plaintiff further incorporated the following facts to the plaint.

“During pendency of the suit the plaintiff came to know that the defendants do not have any right title interest in the suit property. Supriya Mukherjee and Subrata Mukherjee are the owners of the property and they transferred the property in suit in favour of the plaintiff by way of sale. Since after purchase thereby acquiring title the plaintiff has been possessing the property by mutating his name and by paying rates and taxes.”

7. The plaintiff then filed an application for temporary injunction. The order of temporary injunction was passed on 4th April, 2016 on consent and learned Trial Court was pleased to direct the parties to maintain status quo with regards to the possession of the parties in respect of suit property.

8. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement denying all material allegations made therein. It is contended that the plaintiff assured the defendants that he would quit and vacate the suit property after the adjustment of Rs.3,00,0000/- at the rate of Rs.15,000/-per month. The plaintiff took back a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- out of Rs.3,00,000/- he gave to the plaintiff. But despite adjustment the plaintiff did not surrender the possession of the property. He has made a false claim to have acquired ownership of the property by purchase. Subsequently, on 9th August, 2023, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure stating, inter alia, that during pendency of the suit on 5th May, 2020 during Pandemic Covid19 the defendants and their men illegally