Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 427 (CAL)

ARUP RATAN PAL v. SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH

2006-07-17

MAHARAJ SINHA

body2006
Before Mr. Justice Maharaj Sinha, JJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioners herein, who are the present plaintiffs in the Ejectment suit No. 672 of 2000, now pending in the Small Causes Court, Calcutta, have made this application under Article 227 of the Constitution primarily challenging an order dated 26th July, 2004 of the learned Judge, 4th Bench, Small Causes court, Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 672 of 2000 rejecting an application of the petitioners under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act made in the said suit. ( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience and proper appreciation, I will set out the relevant portion including the operative portion of the above order of the learned Judge a little later. ( 3 ) BEFORE considering the merits of the above order, the chain of events that had taken place before the filing of the said application under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (in short the Act)are mentioned in brief. ( 4 ) IT appears from the petition that the above ejectment suit was first instituted in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, by the predecessors in interest of the petitioners and the said ejectment suit was subsequently transferred to the Small Causes Court, Calcutta, and renumbered as Ejectment Suit no. 672 of 2000. ( 5 ) THE tenant/opposite party made an application under the provisions of Section 17 (2) of the Act and the said application was disposed of by the learned Judge, 4th Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta, on 4th December, 2000 asking the opposite party to deposit the rent in arrears for a total sum of rs. 11. 540/- by 10 monthly instalments of Rs, 1,154/- each. ( 6 ) AFTER the above order dated 4th December, 2000, the tenant/opposite party, in fact, deposited three instalments, namely, for the months of January, february and March 2001 and thereafter the opposite party did not deposit any further instalment in terms of the said order dated 4th December, 2000 nor the opposite party deposited the monthly rent. ( 6 ) AFTER the above order dated 4th December, 2000, the tenant/opposite party, in fact, deposited three instalments, namely, for the months of January, february and March 2001 and thereafter the opposite party did not deposit any further instalment in terms of the said order dated 4th December, 2000 nor the opposite party deposited the monthly rent. In the month of August 2001 (either on 27 or 29 August) the opposite party made an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for obtaining leave of the Court to deposit the rent in arrears from the month of April 2001 to August 2001, namely, the balance seven instalments which the opposite party did not deposit in terms of the said order dated 4th December, 2000 and for depositing current rents as well. However, on 13th December, 2001 the opposite party was allowed to deposit the current rent "at his own risk" and ultimately on 10th May, 2002 the said application under Section 151 was rejected by the learned Judge concerned. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, after the dismissal of the above application the petitioners made an application under Section 17 (3) of the Act and the said application was also contested by the opposite party. The opposite party in his turn also made an application again under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the leave of the Court to deposit rent in arrears, namely the said seven instalments which the opposite party failed to deposit in terms of the said earlier order dated 4th December, 2000. ( 8 ) BOTH the said applications of the petitioners and the opposite party were, however, disposed of by the learned Judge by an order dated 3rd september, 2002 and 16th January, 2003 respectively. ( 9 ) IN Paragraph-7 of the petition the petitioners has made the following statements: - ". . . . . . . . on 3rd September, 2002 the application filed by the defendant under Section 151 was allowed on contest with costs and the delay in depositing the arrears of instalment was condoned and the defendant was directed to deposit the rest instalments at a time by the end of September 2002. . . . . . . . on 3rd September, 2002 the application filed by the defendant under Section 151 was allowed on contest with costs and the delay in depositing the arrears of instalment was condoned and the defendant was directed to deposit the rest instalments at a time by the end of September 2002. " ( 10 ) THE learned Judge, in fact, in passing the said order dated 3rd september, 2002, in my opinion, considered the relevant facts as appears from the said order itself and then observed as follows: -"i have gone through the materials-on-record, challans, receipts filed by the defendant. It appears that the defendant has paid three instalments. He paid last instalments on 14th March, 2002. Since then, the defendant has not deposited instalments. In find that the grounds mentioned in the application are misconceived as it appears from the record that the defendant went to U. P. on April 2002 he paid rs. 1,154/- as 3rd instalment of arrear of rent on 14th March, 2001. After that he did not deposited any amount till March 2001. I find that he intentionally did not deposit or pay the instalments. However, I think that the defendant should be given chance to deposit the rest instalents at a time for the interest of justice and the delay should be condoned imposing some costs. Hence, it is ordered that the application filed by the defendant under Section 151 C. P. C. is allowed on contest with costs of Rs. 500/ -. Delay in depositing arrear of instalments is condoned, defendant is directed to deposit the rest instalments at a time by the end of september 2002, in default, the application under Section 17 (3) will be disposed of. Fix 3. 10. 2002 for payment of cost and hearing of the application under Section 17 (3) of the W B. P. T. Act. Dictated and corrected by me sd/-Judge, 4th Bench. " ( 11 ) ACCORDING to the opposite party, after the said order dated 3rd September, 2002 the opposite party deposited a sum of Rs. 9,428/- being the aggregate of the said seven instalments which the opposite party was allowed to deposit under the said order dated 3rd September, 2002 and he also paid the rent in arrears which fell due. 9,428/- being the aggregate of the said seven instalments which the opposite party was allowed to deposit under the said order dated 3rd September, 2002 and he also paid the rent in arrears which fell due. The opposite party also deposited the rent for the month of August and September 2002 and this is supported by the record of the proceedings, namely, "receipt for Deposits" (Annexure-P/4 to the petition appearing at page 34 thereof ). ( 12 ) THE learned Judge thereafter rejected the said application of the petitioners under Section 17 (3) of the Act on 16th January, 2003. The said dismissal was made as the learned Judge found that the defendant/opposite party deposited the rent in arrears and interest by instalments in terms of its said earlier order dated 3rd September, 2002 and on that basis the said application of the petitioners under Section 17 (3) of the Act was dismissed as according to the learned Judge the said application had no merits at that stage. The said order dated 16th January, 2003 of the learned Judge is annexure-P/5 to the petition appearing at page 35 thereof. ( 13 ) BEING aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the said two orders by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Calcutta. The said challenge of the petitioners, it appears, was a successful attempt on the part of the petitioners as the learned Judge, 13th Bench of the City Civil Court in a detailed judgment dated 18th June, 2003 considered the respective cases of the petitioners and the opposite party and eventually set aside the said orders dated 3rd September, 2002, whereby the petitioners were allowed to deposit the said seven instalments and the rent in arrears, and directed the "court below" (namely the Small Causes Court) to dispose of the application under section 17 (3) on merits on the basis of the observations made in the judgment given by the learned Judge in disposing of the said revisional application of the petitioners. The learned Judge in setting aside the said order dated 3rd september, 2002 and in directing the rehearing of the petitioners' application under Section 17 (3) of the Act also observed that the Court below without applying its judicial mind dismissed the said application under Section 17 (3)of the Act of the petitioners. The learned Judge in setting aside the said order dated 3rd september, 2002 and in directing the rehearing of the petitioners' application under Section 17 (3) of the Act also observed that the Court below without applying its judicial mind dismissed the said application under Section 17 (3)of the Act of the petitioners. ( 14 ) THEN came the turn of the opposite party to challenge the said order of the learned Judge, 13th Bench of the City Civil Court dated 18th June, 2003 as the opposite party made an application under Article 227 of the constitution primarily challenging the said judgment and order of the learned judge of the City Civil Court dated 18th June, 2003. The said challenge, however, culminated in an order of this Court dated 25th November, 2003 wherein this Court thought that since the trial Court in a proceeding under section 17 (2) of the said Act had accepted the deposits of rent in arrears "upon exercise of the judicial discretion by considering the facts and circumstances of the case as made out by the tenant/defendant for such delayed deposit, the same should not have been interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115a of the Code of Civil Procedure. " ( 15 ) IN view of the above findings, the effect of the said order dated 3rd september, 2002 was allowed to stand but at the same time the Court found that the application of the petitioners under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act should not have been rejected on merits and as such the order of rejection of the said application under Section 17 (3) of the Act was set aside and the learned Judge of the Court below, namely the Court of small Causes was again to hear the said application of the petitioners under section 17 (3) of the Act "on its merits on the question as to whether the tenant/ opposite party" was depositing "current rent month by month in compliance with the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the said Act". ( 16 ) THE above was the outcome of the challenge of the said judgment and order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dated 18th June, 2003. ( 16 ) THE above was the outcome of the challenge of the said judgment and order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dated 18th June, 2003. ( 17 ) BY virtue of the said order of this Court made on the application of the opposite party under Article 227 of the Constitution, two things emerged, firstly, the deposits made or rather as permitted to be made by the learned judge of the Court below, namely, Small Causes Court were accepted, as the interference with the judicial discretion of the learned Judge in accepting the said deposits were found to be improper and erroneous and secondly, the petitioners application under Section 17 (3) of the Act was again to be heard by the learned Judge concerned on its merits in terms of the directions of this court dated 25th November, 2003. ( 18 ) AFTER the above order of this Court dated 25th November, 2003, again the opposite party approached the learned Judge concerned in the Court below with an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for acceptance of rent in arrears and the said application was again contested by the petitioners and on 26th July, 2004 by a combined order, namely the impugned order herein, the learned Judge, 4th Bench, Small Causes Court, again rejected the application of the petitioners under Section 17 (3) of the Act by recording the followings: - "in the petition under Section 151 of the C. P. C. the defendant has prayed for acceptance of the arrear rents deposited by him in Court on 11. 9. 2002. It transpires on perusal of the record that deposit of the said rents by the defendant has already been accepted by the Court vide Order No. 98 dated 16. 1. 2003. Hence, the instant petition has become redundant and no order is necessary on the same. The petition is accordingly disposed of. " ( 19 ) AND after narrating the facts in brief, the learned Judge observed : - " The Hon'ble Court has been pleased to direct this Court to consider whether the defendant has been depositing rent month by month in compliance with the provision of Section 17 (1) of the Act while disposing of the instant petition. " ( 19 ) AND after narrating the facts in brief, the learned Judge observed : - " The Hon'ble Court has been pleased to direct this Court to consider whether the defendant has been depositing rent month by month in compliance with the provision of Section 17 (1) of the Act while disposing of the instant petition. The challans filed by the defendant reveal that the defendant has been depositing all the current rent month by month regularly in Court. That the defendant has deposited all the arrear rents in Court has already been decided earlier. In the circumstances, I am inclined to hold that as the defendant has complied with the provision under Section 17 (1) of the W. B. P. T. Act, the instant petition has no merit and is liable to be rejected. Hence, ordered that the instant petition under Section 17 (3) of the W. B. P. T. Act is considered and rejected on contest without cost. Fix on 20. 8. 04 for discovery and inspection. " (Page 3, Paragraph-3 of the order) ( 20 ) AT first, the petitioners decided to challenge and challenged the said order dated 26th July, 2004 by invoking the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, calcutta, exercised by it under Section 115a of the Code of Civil Procedure and the learned Judge, 11th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, by a judgment dated 25th November, 2004 allowed the above revisional application of the petitioner. For the sake of convenience the operative portion of the said judgment is set out below: - "that the revision and the same be allowed on contest without any cost. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is hereby set aside. The application under Section 17 (3) of the W. B. P. T. Act filed by the plaintiff is allowed on contest, as the current rent as per provision of Section 17 (1) of the W. B. P. T. Act was not deposited month by month as directed to be considered by the Hon'ble Court. The application under Section 17 (3) of the W. B. P. T. Act filed by the plaintiff is allowed on contest, as the current rent as per provision of Section 17 (1) of the W. B. P. T. Act was not deposited month by month as directed to be considered by the Hon'ble Court. " ( 21 ) AS against the above judgment and order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, dated 25th November, 2004, the opposite party invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution inter alia on the ground that the learned Judge exceeded his jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 115a of the Code of Civil Procedure in setting aside the order of the learned trial Judge dated 26th July, 2004 whereby the learned trial Judge found that the challans filed by the defendant, the opposite party herein, revealed that the defendant had been depositing all the current rents month by month regularly in Court and that the trial Court had already decided earlier by its order that the defendant had deposited the rent in arrears in court on the basis of its earlier order and in compliance of the provisions under Section 17 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and on that basis rejected the application of the petitioners under Section 17 (3) of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. ( 22 ) ON 7th June, 2005, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 227 found that the said judgment and order of the learned Judge, City civil Court dated 25th November, 2004 were without jurisdiction and as such set aside the same. ( 23 ) HOWEVER, by the said order of this Court dated 7th June, 2005, the said order of the learned Judge, 4th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court dated 26th July, 2004 in the above ejectment suit of the petitioners was again restored. ( 24 ) HAVING failed in their attempt to succeed in their application under section 17 (3) of the Act, the petitioners, this time, has challenged the said order dated 26th July, 2004 of the learned Judge, 4th Bench, Presidency Small causes Court by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the constitution. ( 24 ) HAVING failed in their attempt to succeed in their application under section 17 (3) of the Act, the petitioners, this time, has challenged the said order dated 26th July, 2004 of the learned Judge, 4th Bench, Presidency Small causes Court by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the constitution. ( 25 ) AT the hearing, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners tried to highlight from the relevant "challans" dated 12th September, 2002 recording the deposit of rents, (Annexure-P-4 to the writ application appearing at page 34 thereof), that the "current rents" had not been deposited in terms of the order of this Court, namely, the order of P. K. Samanta, J. dated 25. 11. 2003 which was passed by his Lordship on the earlier application of the opposite party under Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 26 ) IT was also emphasised by the learned Counsel, Mr. Kar on behalf of the petitioners that the tenant/opposite party also deposited the monthly instalment in arrears (for seven months) "under a different nomenclature and even then the entire deposit for eight months was not made, as such, the finding of the learned Judge (in the said impugned order dated 26th July, 2004) was prima facie wrong and had been passed overlooking the order of his Lordship Justice P. K. Samanta, overlooking the fact that even then one month's deposit of current rent have not been made. " ( 27 ) ON a plain reading of the said order of this Court dated 25. 11. 2003 passed by Justice P. K. Samanta, it appears and appears quite clearly that his lordship, in fact, accepted the position that all rent in arrears as determined by the trial Court in a proceeding under Section 17 (2) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act had been deposited though belatedly, but since such deposit had been accepted by the trial Court and such acceptance had been made in exercise of the judicial discretion and upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as made out by the tenant/opposite party for such delayed deposit, the same should not have been interfered with in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115a of the Code of Civil procedure. ( 28 ) ON the above basis. ( 28 ) ON the above basis. P. K. Samanta, J. was pleased to modify the order under challenge, namely the said earlier order of the learned Judge, city Civil Court dated 18. 6. 2003. However, his Lordship found that since there was no finding by both the "courts below" that the tenant/opposite party was depositing the current rent month by month in due compliance of the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act after the disposal of the application of the opposite party under Section 17 (2) of the Act, the application of the petitioners under section 17 (3) of the Act should not have been rejected on merits and on that basis, the order passed by the learned trial Judge dismissing the application under Section 17 (3) of the petitioners dated 16th January, 2003 (Order No. 98) was set aside and the application of the petitioners under Section 17 (3) of the Act was directed to be disposed of by the trial Court on merits on the question as to whether the tenant/opposite party was depositing current rent month by month in compliance of the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act. ( 29 ) THE above, in rny opinion, is the sum and substance of the order of justice P. K. Samanta passed in earlier application of the tenant/opposite party under Article 227 of the Constitution dated 25. 11. 2003. The said order on one hand said that since such deposit or deposits of rent in arrears, were accepted by the trial Judge in exercise of his judicial discretion on the basis of the facts and circumstance of the case, the same should not have been interfered with by the learned City Civil Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115a of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 30 ) BY the second part of the said order, this Court, in my opinion, clearly directed the learned trial Judge to record a finding as to whether the tenant/opposite party was depositing current rent month by month in compliance of the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act and for this purpose, the application of the petitioners, the present owners/landlords of the premises in question, under Section 17 (3) of the Act was again directed to be considered on merits. ( 31 ) AS aforesaid, this impugned order dated 26th July, 2004 was once set aside by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, at calcutta, by his said judgment and order dated 25th November, 2004 and this Court after setting aside the said judgment and order of the City Civil Court dated 25th November, 2004 was pleased to restore the said order (No. 119) dated 26th July, 2004 of the learned Judge, 4th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court Calcutta in the above ejectment suit, the impugned order herein. ( 32 ) IN my opinion, once this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution was pleased to restore an order, namely the said order dated 26th July, 2004,1, in exercise of the same jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution, cannot question the validity of the said direction or restoration passed by this Court in exercise of the same jurisdiction, namely the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. On this ground alone, i am minded to dismiss the present application of the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution on merits. In passing the said order dated 7th June, 2005, this Court did not also keep the question open as to whether the said order dated 26th July, 2004 was, otherwise, valid but was simply pleased to restore the said order. In restoring the said order, I am prepared to presume and presume quite correctly, this Court must have incidentally considered the merits of the said order as well. ( 33 ) IN the earlier proceeding under Article 227 the tenant/opposite party must have asserted that the said impugned order dated 26th July, 2004 was perfectly valid and the said assertion must have, expressly or impliedly, been either denied or admitted by the petitioners. ( 34 ) IN any event, there is no doubt that the assertion on the part of the petitioners of the invalidity of the said order dated 26th July, 2004 "might and ought to have been a ground of defence or attack" of the petitioners in the earlier proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 34 ) IN any event, there is no doubt that the assertion on the part of the petitioners of the invalidity of the said order dated 26th July, 2004 "might and ought to have been a ground of defence or attack" of the petitioners in the earlier proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 35 ) WHAT is then the effect of the above judgment and order of this court dated 7th June, 2005, in my opinion, by virtue of the said judgment and order, the petitioners were and are precluded from raising the question once again as to whether the application of the petitioners under Section 17 (3) of the Act was rightly rejected by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court by the said order dated 26th July, 2004. As the learned Judge, as aforesaid, was, in no uncertain terms, pleased to set aside the judgment and order of the learned Judge, 11th Bench, City Civil Court dated 25th November, 2004 and was pleased to restore the said impugned order dated 26th July, 2004. The learned Judge, I repeat in restoring the said order dated 26th July, 2004, did not, at the same time, keep the question open as to whether the said order 26th July, 2004 was otherwise valid or the same could be held to be valid on its merits. ( 36 ) IT does not also appear from the said order that the petitioners, namely, the owners of the tenanted premises also appealed to the learned judge to keep the said question open either. If the petitioners had made any prayer to the learned Judge to keep the question of the validity of the said order on its merits open, and if such prayer had been accepted by the learned judge, then and in that event, it would, perhaps, have been possible for the petitioners to argue that the present proceeding under Article 227 of the constitution again challenging the said order of the learned Judge, 4th Bench, presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta dated 26th July, 2004 (Order No. 19) was perfectly maintainable and was not hit by the principles of res judicata or the principles analogous thereto. ( 37 ) IN my opinion, since this Court in its judgment and order dated 7th June, 2005, was pleased to restore the said impugned order dated 26th July,2004 unconditionally, or rather without keeping the question of validity of the said order on its merits open, the present proceedings under Article 227 again challenging the said order dated 26th July, 2004 should not, in my opinion, be at all entertained. ( 38 ) ON this ground alone, the present application should, in my opinion, be dismissed and I am minded to dismiss the same. ( 39 ) APART from the above, it appears from the chain of events of the litigations that have taken place since the institution of the above ejectment suit that the learned trial Judge allowed the tenant/opposite party to deposit the rent in arrears and the current rent more than once. The orders that allowed the tenant/opposite party to deposit the rent in arrears are dated 4th December, 2000 and 3rd September, 2002 and the petitioners' application under Section 17 (3) was also rejected by the trial Court once on 16th January 2003 and again by the said impugned order dated 26th July, 2004. This Court in deciding the validity of the order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dated 18th june, 2003 came to the finding that all rent in arrears as determined by the trial Court in a proceeding under Section 17 (2) of the Act, had been deposited, though belatedly, and such deposits were, in fact, accepted by the trial Court and such acceptance was validly made in proper exercise of judicial discretion on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case by the trial Court, that is the sum and substance, as I have said above, of the order of this Court dated 25. 11. 2003. 11. 2003. ( 40 ) APART from making a statement or rather giving some reasons in paragraph-14 of the instant petition and apart from attempting to make out a ground or grounds in Paragraphs-3 and 4 at page 12 of the petition, the petitioners, in my opinion, have not been able to point out that there is an error in the impugned order dated 26th July, 2004 which could be said to be an error of law apparent on the face of the record, or that, by passing the said impugned order, the learned Judge committed an irregularity of procedure which affected his jurisdiction or that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. ( 41 ) THE Supreme Court in no uncertain terms rejected the argument "that the Court has no power to extend time under Section 17 of the said Act. The said Act is a beneficial legislation. Such a statute has to be liberally construed so as to ensure that the statutory purpose is fulfilled and not frustrated. " ( 42 ) THE Court also held that a tenant could make an application for extension of time on more than one occasion and the Court has power to enlarge the time on each of such applications. In interpreting the provisions under Section 17 of the Act, the Supreme Court also made the following observations: -"the Court can permit the tenant to deposit or pay in instalments on terms as may be fixed by the Court. The wordings of sub-section (2 A) of Section 17 are wide. They show that a tenant could make an application for extension of time on more than one occasion. The Court has power to enlarge time on each of such applications. The second or third application will obviously be filed beyond the time provided in section 17 (1 ). As the Court has power to extend time on each such application it is clear that the word "shall" used in sub-section (2b) of section 17 means "may". (See Sri Shibu Chandra Dhar v. Sri Pasupati nath Auddya, 2002 SAR (Civil) 446 (SC) Paragraph-14 at page 450 of the report ). As the Court has power to extend time on each such application it is clear that the word "shall" used in sub-section (2b) of section 17 means "may". (See Sri Shibu Chandra Dhar v. Sri Pasupati nath Auddya, 2002 SAR (Civil) 446 (SC) Paragraph-14 at page 450 of the report ). ( 43 ) IT has also been held by the Supreme Court that when the trial Court in exercise of its judicial discretion allows the tenant to deposit rent in arrears and refuses to strike off the defence of the tenants to the suit for ejectment, then such exercise of judicial discretion which is used with due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, should not be interfered with by the High court in its revisional jurisdiction, [see Mangat Singh v. Satpal, (SC:suppl.)2004 (1)CHN at page 49]. ( 44 ) THE other decisions cited by the learned Counsel Mr. Kaushik De, (who has argued the case rather well), namely, the Junior of Mr. Jeeban Ratan chakraborty, the learned Senior Counsel, both appearing on behalf of the tenant/opposite party, need not be referred to in detail as the said decisions of the Supreme Court also support the case of the tenant/opposite party that the impugned order dated 26th July, 2004 should not be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 45 ) LASTLY, having read the impugned order dated 26th July, 2004,i find that the said order was passed upon consideration of the relevant facts as directed to be considered by the said order dated 25th November, 2003 of this court passed by P. K. Samanta, J. in the earlier revisional application, (under Article 227), of the tenant/opposite party. It does not, however, appear that the said order suffers from any perversity or from any error of law, far from an error which can be said to be apparent on the face of the record, or rather, from any jurisdictional vice in the first place. ( 46 ) IN view of the above, I would dismiss the present application of the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 47 ) THE dismissal of this application, however, will not prevent the petitioners or rather the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the trial court for expeditious hearing of the suit, if they so choose. ( 46 ) IN view of the above, I would dismiss the present application of the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 47 ) THE dismissal of this application, however, will not prevent the petitioners or rather the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the trial court for expeditious hearing of the suit, if they so choose. ( 48 ) THERE will, however, be no order as to costs.