JUDGMENT :

KAUSIK CHANDA, J.

1.The writ petitioner challenges an order dated August 3, 2023, passed by Burdwan Municipality in compliance with an order dated April 19, 2023, passed in WPA 7323 of 2023 (Durga Prasad Bhagat Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.).

2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that predecessor in interest of respondent no. 5 to 7 was a licensee of father of the petitioner in respect of the relevant property.

3. To evict the predecessor in interest of respondent nos. 5 to 7, the petitioner filed an eviction suit before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 2^nd Court, Burdwan.

4. The predecessor in interest of respondent nos. 5 to 7 constructed an unauthorised structure on the said land. Pursuant to the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the Municipality by an order dated August 3, 2023, after hearing all concerned declined to demolish the unauthorised construction.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the order dated August 3, 2023, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He submits that the predecessor in interest of respondent nos. 5 to 7 erected an unauthorised structure measuring about 375 square feet. Such a construction comes within the meaning of ‘building’ under Section 2 (3) of West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 and ‘erection of building’ as defined under Section 197 (1) of the said Act.

6. It has further been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that the plaint and the commissioner’s report filed in connection with the suit, make it clear that, though initially, a temporary construction existed, the predecessor in interest of respondent nos. 5 to 7, during the pendency of the suit has raised the permanent structure. Therefore, Burdwan Municipality ought to have demolished the relevant construction as it is both unauthorised and illegal.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment reported at (2013) 5 SCC 336 (Dipak Kumar Mukherjee Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.), in support of his submission.

8. It has also been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that the nature and scope of the pending suit between the parties and the present writ petition are entirely different. In the pending suit, issue revolves around the right, title and interest of the petitioner and the respondent nos. 5 to 7 in relation to the property, while in this writ petition, the sole issue is whether the construction in question for liable to be demolished for violating the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993.

9. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon a judgment reported at AIR 1988 CAL 370 (Rampuria Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors.).

10. It has further been submitted that respondent nos. 5 to 7 cannot claim any equity disregarding the law. Since the unauthorised construction violates the provisions of West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, the respondent nos. 5 to 7 cannot claim any equity to retain the unauthorised construction.

11. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment reported in 2008 (4) CHN (CAL) 89 (State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Mostafizor Rahaman & Ors.).

12. The Municipality, on the other hand, submits that the construction is temporary and does not require a sanction from the Municipality. He has drawn attention of this Court to the order of the Municipality dated August 3, 2023, to suggest that the relevant construction is a ‘chala room’ with an asbestos shed over a brick wall, covering an area of 375 square feet.

13. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 5 to 7 has drawn attention of this Court to the written statement filed in the suit to argue that respondent nos. 5 to 7 have a tenancy right over the relevant property. He further submits that no permanent construction has been made by their predecessor in interest. Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the order dated August 3, 2023, pas