The executing court retains jurisdiction under tenancy laws to enforce possession restoration in compliance with Supreme Court directives, highlighting the importance of timely landlord obligations.

This is second ground of litigation initiated by the petitioner before this Court.

To understand that the issue involved herein, the brief fact is required to be narrated.

Petitioner being the landlord filed a suit for eviction under Section 13 (1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act , 1956. The said proceeding went up the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decreed the suit directing the Trial Court to pass the formal decree, so, that the landlord be given Khas possession for building and re-building, thereafter, after completion of building the tenant may put in possession in terms of the Section 18A of the said Act, 1956.

Consequently, the Trial Court passed a decree favouring both the landlord and tenant and fixed the date for vacation of the building by the tenants and completion of building by the landlord and again directed the landlord to give possession to the tenants within the stipulated period of time. Consequently, the tenants vacated the premises. The landlord started building and re-building. However, during the time fixed in the decree, the landlord could not give possession to the tenants. Thus, tenants approached the Trial Court by filing specific application. Petitioner herein challenged the proceeding initiated by the learned Trial Court at the behest of the tenants only on the ground that learned Trial Court has no jurisdiction under Section 18A of the said Act, 1956 to put the tenant in possession.

It is the submission of the landlord that the rent controller has the only authority to put the tenant in possession, who has been evicted from such premises by a decree passed by the Court under Section 13 (1)(f) of the said Act. On the prayer of the petitioner a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in C.O. 101 of 2021 vide its judgment dated January 9, 2023 has disposed of the said Civil revision with the observation as mentioned in paragraphs 10, 12,13 and 14. They are set out hereinunder.

“10. It appears that inspite of such specific observations made by the Apex Court, the petitioner herein has failed to assign any cogent reason as to why the suit premises could not be completed till now for giving back possession to tenant and under what circumstances possession of the suit premises could not be handed over to the tenant within stipulated period mentioned in the decree when admittedly he obtained possession of the suit premises for the building and rebuilding purpose from the defendant/opposite party herein on 26th April 2016 and admittedly from other tenants on 30th August 2017.

11. On perusal of the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 480 of 1988 it appears that the court below has given direction to both the parties. The plaintiff was directed to obtain sanction plan and to produce the same before the court and to serve copy to the tenants preferably within three months from the date of the order and defendant was directed the vacate suit premises within one month from the date of receipt of production of the sanctioned plan by the plaintiff and on the later part of the order the plaintiff was directed to put back possession of the tenant in the reconstructed building within one year from the date of delivery of possession by the tenants to the plaintiff. Accordingly in the same judgment and decree, the direction was made to both the plaintiff and to the defendant for compliance of their respective obligation and liabilities. In the last part of the order it was further mentioned in case of any neglect or failure of delivery of possession of the shop room either by the tenant/defendant 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 of either of the parties. Accordingly the petitioner herein fil