JUDGMENT S. Narayan, J.: This being an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated April 24, 1996 passed by Shri T. P. Chatterjee, Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Rent Appeal No. 4 of 1994, whereby the order dated May 19, 1994 of the Rent Controller in R. C. Case No. 337 of 1987 was confirmed. By the order of the Rent Controller, the landlords-petitioners were directed to deliver possession in favour of the tenants-O.Ps. over an area measuring about 120 sq. ft. by way of restoration of the tenanted shop room in the ground floor of the premises No. 21A, Biplabi Rash Behari Bose Road (formerly known as Canning Street) Calcutta-1 under s. 18A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 2. The factual aspect of the matter which is apparent on the record is that the petitioners and, prior to them, their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Amar Prasad Gooptu happened to be the owner/landlords of the aforesaid premises, in a portion of which the O.Ps. and, prior to them, their predecessor-in-interest were the occupants as a tenants in respect of a Pan Shop. In the year, 1964 Amar Prasad Gooptu brought an eviction suit being Suit No. 2300 of 1964 of the City Civil Court, Calcutta for evicting the O.Ps. and their predecessor-in-interest on the ground of building and re-building of the premises. The suit was decreed, as against which the tenants O.Ps. preferred an appeal, which went up to the Division Bench of this Court. Ultimately, this Court directed the landlord-petitioners to restore the possession to the tenants within the stipulated time which was, however, subsequently, extended from-time-to-time. Ultimately, when the landlords-petitioners failed to deliver possession, the tenants-O.Ps. initiated a proceeding under s. 18A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, which was registered as R.C. Case No. 337 of 1987 before the Rent Controller, Calcutta. In the said proceeding both the parties adduced evidence and, on conclusion of the proceeding, the order dated May 19, 1994 was passed, which gave rise to the Rent Appeal No.4 of 1994, wherein the impugned order dated April 2, 1996 was passed by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta confirming the order of the Rent Controller. 3. Counsel for the Landlords/Petitioners has raised two points, first being that the shop of the tenants-O.Ps. 3. Counsel for the Landlords/Petitioners has raised two points, first being that the shop of the tenants-O.Ps. was on the outer boundary wall of the old building and so they (the petitioners) were not obliged to give possession over any portion of the premises-in-question after its re-building under s. 18A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and secondly, that because of the reduction in the floor area of the premises after the re-building on account of the changed sanction-plan of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation during the long pendency of the litigation between the parties and also on account of the introduction of the new Calcutta Municipal Act, 1980, the O.Ps. were not entitled to the floor area as claimed. 4. Both the points as raised above were based on factual score, which required investigation, and any decision on those points could be based only on appraisal of evidence adduced with regard thereto. It would be found on the record that there did occur an inquiry before the Rent Controller, who also recorded the evidence, adduced on both the sides, and gave findings on the factual score. There was re-appraisal of the evidence on the record even by the Appellate Court but for concurrent findings so as to confirm the order passed by the Rent Controller. Be it recorded here with emphasis that, for this Court exercising powers as conferred under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible to re-investigate and go for re-appraisal of the evidence. It may be added that no point of perversity in the appraisal of the evidence by the Rent Controller or re-appraisal thereof by the Appellate Court could be pointed out so as to make out a case of gross miscarriage of justice. 5. The prominent issue as raised before the Rent Controller was not the non-existence of the tenancy or the portion of the premises under the tenancy rather it was only the extent of the area under the tenancy. According to the case of the petitioners, the area under tenancy was only 2/3 sq. ft., whereas, according to the O.Ps., it was 120 sq. ft. The Rent Controller determined that the area was actually 120 sq. ft. and, accordingly, there was a direction to the petitioners to give possession over an area in the premises, after rebuilding, equivalent to that extent. ft., whereas, according to the O.Ps., it was 120 sq. ft. The Rent Controller determined that the area was actually 120 sq. ft. and, accordingly, there was a direction to the petitioners to give possession over an area in the premises, after rebuilding, equivalent to that extent. This was also the view expressed and affirmed in the impugned order by the Appellate Court who has gone into the details as to the discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence on the point, adduced on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, there was no reason to re-appraise the evidence and to differ with the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court. It was, however, urged on behalf of the petitioner that as per the Rent receipts granted to the O.Ps., it was only a portion of the outer side of the boundary wall of the premises facing Clive Row and that being as such, the tenancy, if any, did not relate to a building as defined in s. 2(5) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. A boundary wall is said to be not included within the definition of building. In this context, the Appellate Court has rightly observed that what was relevant in context of the tenancy is the premises or any part thereof, which has been contemplated in the provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Whatever forms the subject matter of a tenancy would be regarded as a premises for the tenancy for the purpose of s. 13(1)(f) or in s. 18A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 wherein reference has been made of the term as premises with regard to the tenancy. Further significant to point out was that the premises as defined in s. 2(f) of the said Act included the garden, grounds and outer houses, if any, appertaining to any building or part thereof. It was, therefore, basically wrong to say or to contend on behalf of the petitioners that there was no tenancy or that the so called premises under the tenancy was non-existent. 6. It would rather be apt to point out that the decree in the relevant eviction suit No. 2300 of 1964 clearly speaks of one betal-shop room on the ground floor at premises No. 21/A, Canning Street, P.S. Hare Street, Calcutta butted and bounded by particulars of boundaries given therein. 6. It would rather be apt to point out that the decree in the relevant eviction suit No. 2300 of 1964 clearly speaks of one betal-shop room on the ground floor at premises No. 21/A, Canning Street, P.S. Hare Street, Calcutta butted and bounded by particulars of boundaries given therein. In face of this decree, which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court even on being challenged by the O.Ps., so far it related to the eviction, it was not open for the petitioners to reopen the issue and re-agitate that the premises was non-existent. Once having asserted in the Eviction Suit that there did exist a shop room in the tenanted premises and having obtained a decree and, subsequently, on the strength of the said decree, having got back the possession over the said premises, the landlords-petitioners would be, most certainly, estopped from denying the existence of the premises under tenancy. It was submitted on behalf of the O.Ps. that the petitioners got not only the possession over the tenanted premises on the basis of the decree-in-question but also the extension of time against the time-schedule determined by this Court to complete the work of re-building and to give back possession thereof to the tenants; and such extension of time was obtained on some assurance given at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners. In a situation like this, an estoppel would certainly run against the landlords-petitioners from denying the tenancy-in-question or the premises involved under the tenancy. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners cited three authorities, namely, AIR 1990 Raj 106 , AIR 1990 SC 1133 and 57 CWN 671 in support of their contention that the shop held by the O.Ps. prior to the eviction was on the outer side of the boundary wall and that will not form part of any building but these authorities were of no avail in the instant case for the simple reason as already noticed above. 8. What was urged next is that there were two plans sanctioned by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation with regard to the re-building of the premises-in-question, one being of the year 1963-64 and the other being sanctioned in the year 1985 when the petitioners had obtained the complete possession of the premises-in-question. As per the first sanction plan the construction permitted was to the extent of 14500 sq. As per the first sanction plan the construction permitted was to the extent of 14500 sq. ft., approximately, for a six storied building but as per the subsequent sanction the area was reduced to 900 sq. ft., approximately, with only four storied building. In the meantime, there was also a new enactment of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 repealing the earlier Act of 1951. It was thus contended that the petitioners were no more obliged to give possession to the earlier tenants under s. 18A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. During the course of the proceeding before the Rent Controller, the first sanctioned-plan was not produced. In any view of the matter, the Rent Controller did not accept the case of the petitioners on the above factual score and also categorically held that the landlords-petitioners could not establish the alleged fact of reduction of the floor area in the new building and, accordingly, they (landlords) were under legal obligation for restoration of the tenancy as provided under s. 18A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. This aspect of the matter was also very carefully and extensively gone into in the impugned order but only for upholding the order passed by the Rent Controller. 9. So far the fresh enactment of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 during the long pendency of the litigation between the parties was concerned, I find that, in fact, there was no case made out by the petitioners that the new enactment has introduced such state of impossibility so as to make the provisions under s. 18A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 ineffective thereafter. The statutory right as made available to a tenant under the provisions of the said section is by way of commitment of the landlord to revert back to the tenancy after the re-building of the premises for which purposes alone the tenant is made to part with the possession of the tenanted premises. The statutory right as made available to a tenant under the provisions of the said section is by way of commitment of the landlord to revert back to the tenancy after the re-building of the premises for which purposes alone the tenant is made to part with the possession of the tenanted premises. Such statutory right made available to the tenant under s. 18A of the Act would rather suggest that if there was any short fall of the floor area in the premises after re-building, it was the landlord, who would suffer and not the tenant, otherwise it would provide a dangerous weapon in the hands of the landlord to secure possession under s. 13(1)(1) of the Act and to grab the tenancy right of a tenant by ousting him from the tenanted premises. 10. Lastly, it was urged that by the order dated May 19, 1994 the Rent Controller has failed to determine the monthly rent of the tenancy which should have been a part and parcel of the composite order as required to be passed under s. 18A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. In my considered opinion, the lapse on the part of the Rent Controller would not render the said order invalid. Even after the possession is given back to the tenants-O.Ps. in furtherance of the impugned order, the fair rent can be determined in a suitable proceeding initiated thereafter. So on this score also there could be no interference in the impugned order. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revisional petition has no merit and, accordingly, it is dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Let the order be communicated to the trial court by a special messenger at the cost of the opposite party. Such cost be put in within one week after the Summer Vacation. Revisional petition dismissed.