ORDER : The present appeal is filed against the order dated 17.4.2013 passed in WPC No. 5073/2012, whereby the writ petition of the appellant was disposed of with an observation that if the appellant has any remaining grievances, he is entitled to move before the appropriate Forum. 2. The appellant is running a Medical Shop under the name and style of M/s Tulsyan Medical in Bartand near Jalan Hospital in the district of Dhanbad under the tenancy of respondent nos. 6 to 8. The landlords filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 56/2008 before the court of Munsif-I, Dhanbad for eviction of the Tenant/appellant on the ground of personal necessity and expiry of the tenancy agreement. The grievance of the appellant is that during the pendency of the Eviction Suit, the landlords/respondents 6 to 8 attempted to take steps for forcible dispossession of the appellant and in the last week of January, 2011, the respondents landlords dumped debris besides the shop of the appellant. The appellant filed injunction petition on 27.1.2011 and the same was dismissed on 11.2.2011 on the ground that the debris has been dumped by the side of the medical shop and not in front of the shop. Further case of the appellant is that after the said order dated 11.2.2011, the respondent State authorities dumped soil on 17.2.2011 in front of the shop of the appellant and regarding which the appellant had made complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad and also to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. When no action was taken by the authorities, the appellant filed W.P.C. No. 1018/2011 and by the order dated 22.3.2011, the writ petition was disposed of directing the appellant to move before the Administrator, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation and further directing the Administrator to pass orders after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. 3. The appellant, thereafter, filed an application before the opposite party no. 2 on 02.04.2011. Stating that no action has been taken, the appellant filed Cont (C) Case No. 300/2011 and in the show cause, the respondents had stated that he has passed the order on 9.5.2012, vide memo no. 1494, in which 5th respondent was directed to remove the said debris otherwise the Corporation will remove the same and the cost will be recovered from him. According to the appellant, inspite of such order, no action was taken for removal of the encroachment. 1494, in which 5th respondent was directed to remove the said debris otherwise the Corporation will remove the same and the cost will be recovered from him. According to the appellant, inspite of such order, no action was taken for removal of the encroachment. Thereafter, the appellant filed W.P.C. No. 5073/2012 and the same was disposed of on 17.4.2013 holding that during pendency of the writ petition, Dhanbad Municipality has removed the debris and if the appellant has any further grievance, he is entitled to move before the appropriate forum. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that inspite of the order passed by the Court in Cont. (C) Case No. 300/2011, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation has not removed the debris and further submitted that the learned Single Judge was not right in saying that Dhanbad Municipal Corporation has already removed the debris/waste materials and as such the writ Court was not right in disposing of the writ petition. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to Prabhat Khabar Newspaper (Annexure-8), wherein a news was published on 18.04.2013 that the Executive Officer-Shri Anil Kumar, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, has been recommended for removal by the Municipal Commissioner on the ground that the said Executive Officer is not doing work, which has been allotted to him and one of the works allotted to him was also of removal of debris dumped besides the appellant's medical shop. Learned counsel further submitted that the recent photographs would clearly show that debris are not being removed and, therefore, he prayed for allowing the letters patent appeal. 5. We have heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. A. Allam, appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 4 as also Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 6. This matter has chequered history of three rounds of litigation under the pretext of dumping of debris in front of the tenanted premises of the appellant. 5. We have heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. A. Allam, appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 4 as also Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 6. This matter has chequered history of three rounds of litigation under the pretext of dumping of debris in front of the tenanted premises of the appellant. The grievance of the appellant is that in front of his medical shop namely M/s Tulsyan Medical Shop, debris had been dumped with a view to cause hindrance/disturbances in running his medical shop at the behest of the landlords, who are said to have filed a Title Eviction Suit against the appellant-tenant being Title (Eviction) Suit No. 56/2008 and the same is pending. 7. In the writ Court, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation has filed counter affidavit stating that on representation of the appellant, the respondents passed an order contained in memo no. 234 dated 2.3.2013, whereby Mr. Anil Kumar, the Executive Officer, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, was appointed and the said officer has removed all the debris/waste materials lying in front of the side of the shop of the appellant. When Dhanbad Municipal Corporation has sworn on oath stating that debris have been removed, the appellant cannot make any grievance about the same. It is also pertinent to point out that for the same relief, the appellant had filed an injunction petition in the Title Suit and the said injunction petition was rejected. When Dhanbad Municipal Corporation has removed the debris, the learned Single Judge rightly recorded the same and disposed of the writ petition. 8. We do not find any infirmity warranting interference with the order of the learned Single Judge. The Title Eviction Suit filed by the respondent nos. 6 to 8 being Title (Eviction) Suit No. 56/2008 is pending for more than 6 years. It is for the appellant to work out his remedy in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 56/2008. The District Munsif Court-I, Dhanbad is directed to dispose of Title (Eviction) Suit No. 56/2008 at an early date, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Office is directed to mark copy of this judgment to the District Munsif Court-I, Dhanbad.