N. K. BHATTACHARYYA, J. ( 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 injunction passed by the said Munsif Court on 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 landlady. ( 3 ) HIS electricity is being supplied from the meter standing in the name of one Sri Ajit Kumar Nandy and for 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, Barasat 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 lines 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 die defendant landlady. ( 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 9-11-91 alleging, inter alia, that on 28-10-91 the defendant-landlady entered into die 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. 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 7-8-89. ( 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 85 CWN 958, and Sand Kumar Halder v. Nisikanta Bhandari reported in AIR 1983 Calcutta 266 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 Salil Kumar Halder (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 costs. ( 19 ) LET a xerox copy of the order be given to the learned Advocates for the parties as prayed for, on compliance of usual formalities. Application rejected.