N. K. BHATTACHARYYA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. G. P. Trivedi appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Siddhartha De and the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 5 Mr. Samiran Giri as well as the learned Advocate for the Municipal Authority (respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3), Mr. Dipankar Chakrabory appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Fazlul Haque. Considered the materials on record. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the writ petitioner is that the respondent No. 5 is trying to take forcible possession of the garage which is tenanted to her and disturbing her peaceful possession of the tenanted garage by raising unauthorised construction. ( 3 ) THE short background of this case is that the writ petitioner is a tenant in respect of a garage at a monthly rental of Rs. 70 under the respondent No. 5 and the respondent No. 5 in order to evict her from the tenancy behind her got a prior sanction from the Calcutta Minicipal Corporation for constructing a three storied building blocking the ingrees and egress of the petitioner to the garage. The petitioner has already brought a suit, being Title Suit No. 80 of 1996. praying for a declaration that she is a tenant under the respondent No. 5 in respect of the garage and also for a permanent and mandatory injunction for preventing the landlord from raising the said construction obstructing the ingress and egress of the petitioner to the garage. In that suit being Title Still No. 80 of 1996, the petitioner also made an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule t and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the ad-Interim Injunction has already been granted restraining the landlord, the respondent No. 5 herein, from obstructing the ingress amt egress of the petitioner for going to that garage. The matter is pending before the civil court. In the meantime the petitioner has filed the instant writ application and asked for the reliefs as delineated In the petition. ( 4 ) NOW, there is a disputed question whether any construction has been made obstructing the ingress and engross of the petitioner to her tenanted garage. The record further evinces that 144 proceeding has already been taken prohibiting the respondent from obstructing the Ingress and egress to the tenanted garage. ( 4 ) NOW, there is a disputed question whether any construction has been made obstructing the ingress and engross of the petitioner to her tenanted garage. The record further evinces that 144 proceeding has already been taken prohibiting the respondent from obstructing the Ingress and egress to the tenanted garage. So, the question whether such a construction has been raised or is going to be raised is already a subjectmatter of the civil suit pending adjudication. ( 5 ) THE petitioner further alleged that no opportunity of hearing was given to her before sanctioning of the plan and that no objection was taken from her since her tenancy is going to jeopardise. Schedule XVI, read with Rules. 49. 55 and 62b, read with section 397 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 do not envisage that any notice is to be given to the tenant for sanctioning of the plan by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. It will be pertinent to mention here that the Schedule XVI is now incorporated as the Calcutta Municipal Building Rules, 1990 with certain changes. A Division Bench of this court by its judgement dated June 25, 1985, in the case of Komodo, Sundari Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. and Ors. v. Namdang Tea Co. Ltd. , reported in 1985 (II) CHN 157 has already held that no such notice is envisaged under the Act, but it has also held that so long as the petitioner remains a monthly tenant, undoubtedly the tenant has a right of enjoyment of the tenanted portion let out to file tenant. Merely by obtaining any sanction from the Calcutta Municipal Corporation the landlord cannot interfere with the right of enjoyment of the tenancy of the petitioner. The landlord only by establishing any one or more of the grounds set out in section 13 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act can recover possession from the tenant. It is a settled law that a person cannot be evicted from the property without due process of law. When a person flies a civil suit, as in the instant case, for perpetual or mandatory injunction challenging the validity of a sanction of a building plan obtained by the owner of a holding on the ground of breach of Municipal rules, he must also establish that the proposed construction on tile defendant's land would result in infringement of the plaintiff's property or personal rights. Unfortunately, in the instant case, the civil suit that has been filed is not challenging the sanctioned plan. It is only for a declaration that the plaintiff is the tenant under the landlord, respondent No. 5 herein, and such declaration is awaiting. The further allegation has been in that suit is that by the proposed construction the landlord is trying to interfere with the right of ingress and egress of the tenant to her tenanted portion. That is also a subject-matter in the suit itself. So, petitioner has her remedy in a civil suit already launched by the petitioner to protect her right of engress and ingress to the tenanted portion which is the garage. If there is any attempt to evict her from the tenanted portion, the garage. without due process of law, then the plaintiff under the law can seek her remedy and which she has already sought for in the civil suit. It will be open to the civil court that if by circuitous process the landlord is trying to interfere with the tenancy right of the tenant for securing the eviction of the tenant in an indirect way by creating obstruction, than it will be appropriate for the civil court to interfere with the same. But this court silting in this writ jurisdiction cannot decide that question as it is a question of fact prima facie. For the purpose of deciding that matter, evidence would be considered as would be laid by the parties. It is also to be considered whether in violation of the light of the tenant a building plan has been sanctioned in a collateral way. It will be appropriate for the civil court to go into that question. As nothing has been shown before me that the building plan sanctioned by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in favour of the landlord, respondent No. 5 is in breach of any statutory Rules or Act, at this stage I cannot go into the question of legality regarding the sanctioned plan. When the matter will come up before the civil court, the civil court will consider that. When the matter will come up before the civil court, the civil court will consider that. when considering the main matter in a collateral way and give reasons of mandatory direction upon the Municipal Corporation that the Corporation shall adhere to the Act and Rules framed thereunder in the matter of sanctioning the plan and as the plan has already been sanctioned, which Is, according to the petitioner, is not according to the Rules and Act of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1980, on the ground that interferes with the right of Ingress and egress of the petitioner to the tenanted portion, all 1s to be decided on trial on evidence. ( 6 ) I, therefore, find that this writ application is premature. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. without any order as to costs. ( 7 ) I, however, make it clear that regarding the merit of the suit I have not entered into the matter and it will be open for the parties to make their appropriate submissions before the civil court and to produce all documents and evidence as would be required finally and the civil court will consider the same and shall give its own decision being free from being influenced by this order. Petition disposed of of