Judgment :- (1) THIS is a revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of india against the judgment and order dated December 16,2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sealdah in Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 2005 reversing Order No. 17 dated February 15,2005 passed by the learned Civil judge (Junior Division), Second Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 117 of 2004. (2) THE brief facts leading to filing of this revisional application are as follows:- (a) The plaintiff, 54 Block Congress Committee, on April 17, 2004, institutes the said suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court at Sealdah against Shyamal Das, inter alia, for permanent injunction In the said suit the plaintiff alleges that the plaintiff is a lawful tenant under the said defendant in respect of one big hall with right of user of common bath and privy and of the entire open space, at a monthly rental of Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred)only payable according to English Calendar; the plaintiff is running the office of 54 Block Congress Committee and, also, the office of the west Bengal Pradesh Kisan Congress. As there was cordial relationship between the parties, the defendant never granted rent receipt to the plaintiff; on and from April 5, 2004 the defendant constantly starts creating pressure upon the plaintiff to vacate the suit property; on april 13, 2004 at about 10. 30 a. m. the defendant, along with some unknown persons, tried to take possession of the suit property by force, but due to interference of. some local people, the defendant was not successful in doing so. Therefore, the said suit was filed, inter alia, seeking a decree for permanent injunction against the defendant and his men and agents restraining them from making over possession of the suit property to any third party and from causing any interference with peaceful and lawful enjoyment of tenancy by the plaintiff in the suit premises. Therefore, the said suit was filed, inter alia, seeking a decree for permanent injunction against the defendant and his men and agents restraining them from making over possession of the suit property to any third party and from causing any interference with peaceful and lawful enjoyment of tenancy by the plaintiff in the suit premises. (b) After institution of the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from making over possession of the suit property to any third party and from causing any interference and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises without due course of law. (c) The learned Trial Judge by Order No. 3 dated April 19, 2004 refused to grant any exparre ad interim order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff at that stage. (d) The defendant, however, applied for local inspection under order 39, Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the aid of the hearing of the application for temporarily injunction. The learned Trial Judge by Order No. 6 dated May 5, 2004 allowed the said application for local inspection filed by the defendant and appointed shri Shyamal Bose, learned Advocate as the commissioner for local inspection. (e) The learned Commissioner held local inspection and submitted his report dated May 21,2004. In his report the learned Commissioner, inter alia, observes that he notices that the,suit property is kept under lock and key and the defendant opens padlock of the room He, also, records that the room is under repair. He notices one big size iron gate along with the cut out fixed on the eastern side of the wall leading towards road side. He, also, notices a small size grill gate on the extreme southeast corner of the premises, but the grill gate is fixed by welding and it cannot be opened for egress and ingress. He notes the submission of the learned advocate for the defendant that there is nothing significant to note that the plaintiff had any kind"of possession in any portion of the suit property. (f) On May 18, 2004 the defendant filed an application for mandatory injunction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of possession. He notes the submission of the learned advocate for the defendant that there is nothing significant to note that the plaintiff had any kind"of possession in any portion of the suit property. (f) On May 18, 2004 the defendant filed an application for mandatory injunction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of possession. The defendant alleged that, after the local inspection/on May 16, 2004 at about 12. 30 noon about 60 to 70 people arrived at the suit property and trespassed by force and dispossessed the defendant by breaking the padlock of the main entrance gate. The main entrance gate was locked from inside and the trespasser entered inside the premises by scaling the boundary wall and broke the padlock by using hammer. (g) The plaintiff contested the said application for restoration of possession by denying the allegations made in the said application. (h) The learned Trialjudge by Order No. 17 dated February 15, 2005 allows the said application filed by the defendant, on contest, holding, inter alia, that the plaintiff had no possession or right of possession in respect of the suit property, but the plaintiff trespassed by force and violence dispossessing the defendant by breaking the padlock of the main entrance of the suit premises. The learned Judge, therefore, directs restoration of possession in favour of the defendant within twenty days from the date of the order failing which liberty is granted to the defendant to obtain restoration of possession in accordance with law. The learned Trial Judge in passing the said order heavily relies upon the report submitted by the learned Advocate Commissioner. (i) The plaintiff being aggrieved preferred an appeal, which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 2005 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sealdah. (j) The learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court, however, by judgment and order dated December 16, 2005 allows the said appeal and sets aside the Order No. 17 dated February 15, 2005 passed by the learned Trial Judge. Consequently, the application filed by the defendant for restoration of possession is rejected. (k) The learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court holds that the defendant is yet to file his written statement in the suit; therefore, in substance there was no claim, leave aside any counter-claim, of the defendant seeking recovery of possession. Consequently, the application filed by the defendant for restoration of possession is rejected. (k) The learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court holds that the defendant is yet to file his written statement in the suit; therefore, in substance there was no claim, leave aside any counter-claim, of the defendant seeking recovery of possession. The documents produced by the plaintiff, prima facie, shows that the plaintiff has been using the address of the suit premises since long in print. The learned Judge notices that even the report of the local inspection Commissioner shows there are cut outs near main gate although the learned commissioner does not elaborate as to the particulars of those cut outs, whether belonging to defendantor not. (l) Being aggrieved the defendant has come up with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (3) AN affidavit of service was filed, but the postal article addressed to the plaintiff/opposite party came back with the postal endorsement not claimed. By my order dated March 23, 2006, I directed the petitioner/ defendant to serve a copy of this revisional application on the learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff/opposite party in the Court below, by registered post wilh acknowledgement due. An affidavit of service is filed showing service of notice of the revisional application on the learned Advocate for the plaintiff/opposite party, namely, Shri Kalidas Sarkar, by speed post with acknowledgement due. In spite of such service, none appears for the opposite party. (4) MR. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee. learned Senior Advocate, appears for the petitioner and submits that the plaintiff was never a tenant under the defendant. The plaintiff was never in possession of the suit premises, but the plaintiff, by force, took possession of the suit premises on May 16, 2004. Mr. Banerjee submits that the learned Judge in the lower appellate Court misconstrued the report of the commissioner, particularly, the portion where the learned Commissioner reports about the cutout. Mr. Banerjee submits that the learned Commissioner reports that there was a big size iron gate with a smaller entrance within one of the flanks of the gate, which was used for egress and ingress in the event the main gate is locked. Mr. Banerjee submits that the learned Commissioner never wanted to say that he has noticed cut out of any figure. Mr. Banerjee submits that the learned Commissioner never wanted to say that he has noticed cut out of any figure. (5) AS I have noticed earlier that, in allowing the application for mandatory injunction, the learned Trial Judge heavily relied upon the report of the learned advocate Commissioner. The learned Advocate Commissioner is an independent person; he had been to the locale; he submitted his report, after holding local inspection. From his report it is clear that the property was kept under the lock and key and the defendant opened the padlock of the room. The learned Advocate Commissioner could not find any trace of presence of the plaintiff inside the suit premises. (6) THE learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court found fault in the report when the learned Judge observed that the learned Commissioner although noticed that there were cut outs near the main gate, but he did not point out as to the particulars of the cut outs. (7) I am of the opinion, upon careful perusal of the report of the learned advocate Commissioner, that he never meant that he noticed any figure of person near the main gate The learned Commissioner noticed a hatch, that is, the lower half of a divided door, which could be opened for egress and ingress when the upper portion was closed. The learned Judge in the Lower appellate Court misconstrued the expression cut out as figures of persons. (8) THE learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court had no justifiable reason to disbelieve the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner, who was a practising Advocate of the Court. The learned Advocate Commissioner was deputed not to collect evidence, but to obtain evidence, which, from its nature, could only be had from the spot. (9) THE learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court holds that the plaintiff is using the address of the suit premises in their correspondences for some time. The suit house is a big premises, but the plaintiff is specifically claiming tenancy in respect of a big hall with right of user of common bath and privy and of entire open space. The plaintiff has miserably failed even, prima facie, to establish the tenancy right. The title of the defendant is not in dispute. The suit house is a big premises, but the plaintiff is specifically claiming tenancy in respect of a big hall with right of user of common bath and privy and of entire open space. The plaintiff has miserably failed even, prima facie, to establish the tenancy right. The title of the defendant is not in dispute. When the learned advocate Commissioner went to the locale, he could get access to the disputed room with the help of the defendant, who opened the padlock of the room. It can, therefore, be safely presumed that the defendant was dispossessed by the plaintiff and their men and agents on May 16, 2004. (10) THE learned Trial Judge is justified in directing restoration of possession and the learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court is not correct in reversing such order. (11) THE Supreme Court of India in the case of Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and Crs. , reported in 1997 (5) SCC 76 observes that the power and duty of the High Court under Article 227 is essentially to ensure that the Courts and Tribunals, inferior to High Court, have done what they were required to do. The High Court can interfere under Article 227 in cases of erroneous assumption or acting beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent error in procedure, arriving at a finding, which is perverse or based on no material, or resulting in manifest injustice. As regards finding of fact of the inferior Court, the High Court should not quash the judgment of the subordinate Court merely on the ground that its finding of fact was erroneous, but it will be open to the High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 to interfere with the finding of fact if the subordinate Court came to the conclusion without any evidence or upon manifest misreading of the evidence thereby indulging in improper exercise of jurisdiction or, if its conclusion is perverse. If the evidence on record in respect of a question of fact is not at all taken into consideration and without reference to such evidence, the finding of fact is arrived at by inferior Court or Tribunal, such finding must be held to be perverse and lacking in factual basis. If the evidence on record in respect of a question of fact is not at all taken into consideration and without reference to such evidence, the finding of fact is arrived at by inferior Court or Tribunal, such finding must be held to be perverse and lacking in factual basis. In such circumstances, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227, the High court will be competent to quash such perverse finding of fact. The High court, in such circumstances, will be competent to consider the validity of the finding of fact assailed before it with reference to materials-on-record. (12) IT is settled law that the Court has power of remedying an injury or wrong by a mandatory injunction on an interlocutory application. The defendant was dispossessed from the suit property, by force, subsequent to filing of the suit. The defendant had made out an exceptional case in support of his claim and in this deserving case the Court should not hesitate to come in the aid of a litigant and uphold the cause of justice by granting mandatory injunction. (13) IN this case the learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court upset the order of the learned Trial Judge upon manifest misreading of the evidence thereby indulging in improper exercise of jurisdiction. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Courtis perverse and patently unreasonable necessitating exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of india by this Court to quash such perverse finding. (14) THE order impugned passed by the Lower Appellate Court is set aside and the order passed by the learned Trial Judge is restored. (15) THE revisional application is, thus, allowed. I make no order as costs.