Calcutta High Court
Smt. Charubala Dev Nath vs Shri Niranjan Pathak, on 22 April, 1993
Equivalent citations: AIR1993CAL288, (1993)2CALLT449(HC), AIR 1993 CALCUTTA 288, (1993) 2 CALLT 449
ORDER
1. The landlord defendant by this revision challenged order No. 42 dated 11-3-92 passed by Munsif, 1st Court, Baraset in Title Suit No. 241 of 89 directing the police to implement the order of e said Munsif Court injunction passed by thon 7-8-89, upon an application by the plaintiff-tenant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dated 9-11-91.
2. The brief profile of the plaint case is that the plaintiff is a tenant under the defendant at a monthly rental of Rs. 200 payable according to English calendar month and that he is paying rent regularly to the defendant land-lady.
3. His electricity is being supplied from the metre standing in the name of one Sri Ajit Kumar Nandy and for the the consumption of the electricity the plaintiff is paying charges. The land lady disconnected the said electric connection.
4. The defendant asked for enhancement of rent and on the refusal by the plaintiff she threatened to block the window in the plaintiff's room.
5. The tenant, thereafter, filed a suit against the landlady in the court of 1st Munsif, Baraset for permanent injunction and for restraining her from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and also from blocking the windows and disconnecting the electric line and the said suit has been registered in that Court as Title Suit No. 241 of 1991.
6. In that suit the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was contested by the defendant land lady.
7. On that application the learned Munsif by Order No. 8 dated 7-8-89 directed maintenance of status quo till the disposal of the suit.
8. The defendant entered appearance in the suit and filed written statement.
9. The plaintiff, thereafter, made another application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated 9-11-1991 alleging, inter alia, that on 28-10-1991 the defendant land lady entered into the suit property with the intention of constructing a wall, with the object, that the plaintiff may not use the kitchen. No written objection to that petition was filed by the defendant but she contested the same by making oral submissions.
10. The learned Munsif after hearing both the parties directed the police to render all possible aids to the plaintiff for the implementation of order of injunction passed by that Court on 7-8-1989.
11. The defendant has come up before this Court in revision against the said order and obtained ad interim order of stay of operation of the impugned order.
12. The only point raised in this case, in the background of the fact stated above, is whether the Court has power and jurisdiction to grant police help to implement its order upon, an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
13. Smt. Sanghamitra Nandy, the learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that such direction cannot be given by the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
14. For the opposite party, Mr. Bidyut Banerjee, the learned Advocate, argued that under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court has the power to give such direction to the police for implementation of its order. He cited the cases of Saudamini Roy Chowdhury v. Satyendra Nath Sarkar reported in (1981) 85 CWN 958, and Sunil Kumar Haldar v. Nisikanta Bhandari as authorities on the point.
15. Having considered the respective submissions of the learned Advocate for the parties, the materials on record and the decisions cited above I am of the firm opinion that the contention of Smt. Nandy cannot be accepted.
16. In the cases of Saudamini Roy Chowdhury (supra) and Sunil Kumar Haldar (supra) this court has taken the view that the Court has the power under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure to direct the police to render help for implementation of its order.
17. Accordingly, I am of the view that the impugned order should be sustained.
18. In the result the revisional application is dismissed. The ad interim order of stay stands vacated. There will be no order as to costs.
19. Let a xerox copy of this order be given to the learned Advocate for the parties, as prayed for on compliance of usual formation.
20. Revision dismissed.