D/L- 28

24/09/2025

Ct. No.-6

Aritra C.O. 3511 of 2025

Md. Golam Rahaman Satiulla @

Golam Rahaman Safiulla

Vs.

Md. Sariful Islam

Mr. A. Chakraborty

Mr. Sarada Prasad Roy

.…for the petitioner

This application under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order dated July 9, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 1^st Court at Barasat

in Title Suit No.69 of 2024.

By the order impugned, the application under

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for

restoration of possession with police help stood allowed.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner

submits that the opposite party vacated the suit property and delivered khas possession of the same to the petitioner on December 20, 2023. He submits that suppressing such fact the petitioner filed a suit for declaration of tenancy right and for permanent injunction and obtained an ad interim order of injunction on January 19, 2024. He submits that it is well-settled that unless the rights of the parties are determined at the interlocutory stage, the ad interim order of injunction cannot be implemented through police help. He submits

that the learned trial judge without assigning any reasons allowed restoration of possession in favour of the opposite party with police help. He further submits that in case there is any breach of an order of injunction, the appropriate remedy lay under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure and not by way of filing an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for restoration of possession with police help.

It is not in dispute that the opposite party was a tenant in respect of the suit property under the petitioner. The copy of the tenancy agreement has been annexed to this civil revision application wherefrom this Court finds that the opposite party was inducted as a monthly tenant by virtue of a tenancy agreement dated August 1, 2020 for a period of three years at a monthly rental of Rs.1200/- per month with effect from August 1, 2020 till July 31, 2023.

The opposite party filed a suit for declaration of tenancy right and for permanent injunction. It is the case made out in the plaint that the defendant No.1 after taking rent for the month of July, 2023 in collusion with other defendants started to demand huge amount of money from the plaintiff/opposite party in advance for renewal of further agreement. It is the further case of the opposite party that the defendant No.1 along with his wife came to the A schedule shop room and trying to put a padlock on the rented shop room of the plaintiff/opposite party and when the opposite party raised objection against such illegal activities the defendant No.1 and his wife uttered filthy languages directed against the plaintiff/opposite party and his son and threw out some goods from the rented shop room and threatened that they will evict the plaintiff/opposite party at any cost. It has been further stated in the complaint that on January 6, 2024 at the instigation of the defendant, the defendant No.1 son, wife and his aunty along with their men and agents came to the A schedule suit property and without any valid reason asked the plaintiff/opposite party to vacate the A schedule property with immediate effect. On such allegation the opposite party filed the suit for declaration of tenancy right and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and their men and agents from evicting the plaintiff/opposite party without due process of law from the A schedule property and from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff/opposite party from the schedule suit property and from making any wastage and damage of the suit schedule property and/or from changing the nature and character of the suit property in any way and from causing any disturbance while continuing the business in the suit schedule property by the plaintiff/opposite party.

The plaintiff/opposite party filed an application unde