JUDGMENT S. Narayan, J. This petition in revision is directed against an order dated June 7, 1994 passed in appellate jurisdiction by the Chief Judges Court of Small Causes Calcutta in R.A. No. 3 of 1993, whereby an order dated April 23, 1993 of the Additional Rent Controller, Calcutta in R.C. Case No. 216 of 1987 was affirmed. By the order dated April 23, 1993, the Additional Rent Controller allowed the petition of the respondents-tenants under s. 18A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, directing the petitioner-landlord to put the respondents in possession of one room measuring 300 sq. ft. approximately in the suit premises comprised in 21A, Biplabi Rash Behari Bose Road, Calcutta. 2. The factual matrix of the matter is that the petitioner at all material times since 1962 was and still is the owner of the aforesaid premises and the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents was a tenant under the petitioner in some portion of the aforesaid premises. The petitioner brought an ejectment suit being Suit No. 2305 of 1964 for eviction under s. 13(l)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 on the ground of building and re-building of the said premises and obtained a decree on December 2, 1965. Subsequently, there were appeals preferred by one or the other tenants including the respondents of the said premises. Those appeals, however, ultimately failed and the petitioner could get possession of the premises as late as on June 7, 1981. The premises was thereupon rebuilt. After re-building of the premises, the petitioner offered a room with an area of only 200 sq. ft. to the respondents but it was not accepted by them on the ground of reduced area. The respondents, thereupon, moved the Rent Controller for direction upon the petitioner-landlord to put them in possession of the suit premises with the same floor area, which they were occupying before eviction in pursuance of the decree in the ejectment suit. The Additional Rent Controller, after due inquiry into the matter in presence of both the parties, passed an order dated April 23, 1993 in R.C. Case No. 216 of 1987, which was affirmed by the impugned order of the Appellate Court, already referred to above. 3. The Additional Rent Controller, after due inquiry into the matter in presence of both the parties, passed an order dated April 23, 1993 in R.C. Case No. 216 of 1987, which was affirmed by the impugned order of the Appellate Court, already referred to above. 3. Obviously, the bone of contention between the parties was with regard to the extent of area under tenancy occupied by the respondents or their predecessor-in-interest prior to the execution of the decree of ejectment and the area, which was offered by the petitioners to the respondents after rebuilding of the suit premises. This was pure and simple question of facts, there being no point of law involved therein. According to the respondents tenants the area under the tenancy in occupation prior to the eviction was 400 sq. ft. and, hence they claimed entitlement to the same area after the re-building of the premises. However, the petitioner-landlord contended inter alia that the area under the tenancy was only to the extent of 200 sq. ft. and, therefore, it was that much of area which would be offered to the respondents-tenants and nothing beyond that. 4. On the point of controversy as noticed above, the Additional Rent Controller, after scanning the entire evidence on the record, came to a conclusion that the respondents-tenants were entitled to re-occupy the portion of the suit premises after re-building only to the extent of the floor area being 300 sq. ft.. The finding as such, has been affirmed by the Appellate Court, i.e., the Chief Judges Court of Small Causes, Calcutta by the impugned order, wherein it would be seen that the evidence on the record has been duly appraised in proper direction by the Rent Controller and also by the Appellate Court, respectively. That being as such, this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction in the matter finds no scope to go for re-inquiry of the matter and to reverse the concurrent finding of facts already available on the record. 5. That being as such, this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction in the matter finds no scope to go for re-inquiry of the matter and to reverse the concurrent finding of facts already available on the record. 5. However, a point of equity, which also was more or less based on facts, has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that due to the long gap of time between the date of decree of eviction (i.e. June 22, 1965) and the actual possession delivered to the petitioner-landlord by the tenants (i.e. June 7, 1981), the sanction-plan of the building, on the basis of which the eviction decree was obtained, lapsed; and there was a fresh sanction-plan obtained in the year 1982 by which time the new rules and regulations of Calcutta Municipal Corporation came into force with the result that the earlier sanction for re-building with the floor area of 14,000 sq. ft. was reduced to 9,000 sq. ft.. It was, therefore, urged on behalf of the petitioner that it was not practicable to provide the same area as previously occupied by one or the other tenants on account of reduction of about 500 sq. ft. of the floor area after the re-building of the premises. The provision under s. 62A of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 was referred to in this connection, which to speaks that the permission to execute the work of a new building shall be valid for a period of 5 years from the date from which it is given and may be renewed thereafter for a further period of 5 years on payment of a fee of 20 Rupees and the production of the previously sanctioned building plans. 6. There was definitely a long gap of about 15 years between the date of decree of eviction and the possession of the tenanted premises being delivered to the landlord, but the pertinent question was, whether there has been actually any change made in the earlier sanctioned plan or there was simply renewal of the sanctioned plan with the same area on the basis of which the eviction decree was obtained. This aspect of the matter appears to have been duly gone into by the Additional Rent Controller. This aspect of the matter appears to have been duly gone into by the Additional Rent Controller. It is to be noticed here that the Rent Controller has categorically pointed out that the original sanctioned plan, said to be of the year 1963, was not produced by the landlord and hence there was no comparative picture of the two plans available. The plea of reduction in the area for the re-building purpose thus utterly failed even upon due consideration by the Rent Controller and, subsequently, this point, was abandoned before the Appellate Court. There was only one sanctioned plan, marked Exbt. B, which was produced before the Rent Controller and that was in respect of sanction of 9,000 sq. ft.. What was more significant to be noticed in this regard is that there was a glaring admission in the oral evidence of the petitioner, who was examined as O.P. r No. 1 before the Additional Rent Controller. This was to the effect that some outsiders had been inducted in the suit premises after re-building. This admission was said to be indicative of the fact that the petitioner-landlord did not act bona fide rather his conduct was opposed to the real purport and spirit of law as provided under s. 18A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. A decree of eviction obtained under s. 13(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was a special privilege given to the landlord to take back possession of the tenanted portion from the tenant but was subject to an associated condition that the tenant would be restored to the possession under the tenancy after the re-building of the premises. A landlord after having availed a statutory benefit as such would be precluded from denying the statutory liability of restoring the possession to the tenant on one plea or the other. For all practical purposes, the earlier tenancy subsists and, accordingly, a tenant is legally entitled to be restored with the possession of the area under the tenancy. 7. Lastly, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that neither the Additional Rent Controller nor the Appellate Authority has cared to determine the fair rent of the tenancy-in-question. I am, however, sure that for this reason above there was no need of interference in the impugned order. 7. Lastly, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that neither the Additional Rent Controller nor the Appellate Authority has cared to determine the fair rent of the tenancy-in-question. I am, however, sure that for this reason above there was no need of interference in the impugned order. It goes without saying that the fair rent of the tenancy-in-question can be very well determined in a subsequent proceeding. The omission as , such by the Rent Authority will not give rise to a legal right to the landlord to avoid his statutory obligation of restoring possession to the tenant under s. 18A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 8. In the premise, this revisional petition must fail 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. Revision petition dismissed.