JUDGMENT : Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. Order impugned dated 13th January, 2014 passed by the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No.824 of 2012 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an order directing the defendant/opposite party to remove the padlock or any other resistance from the gate of the common passage so that the petitioner/plaintiff/tenant may get free access to the suit property from main road forthwith, failing which direction may be given to the officer-in-charge, Burtolla police station to remove the same and to give free access to the plaintiff for ingress and egress to the suit property from the main road. 2. The brief facts, which have come out from the pleadings and materials available on record, reveal that the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of two bed rooms, one varandah, common bath and privy along with free ingress and egress through the door on the eastern side of the varandah together with other facilities and amenities attached thereto are on the ground floor at premises No.21/D, Principal Khudiram Bose Road, Calcutta-700006, police station Burtolla. The suit premises was originally belonged to one Ila Dey. The petitioner/plaintiff/tenant was inducted by her in respect of the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs.80/- payable according to the English calender month. The rate of rent has been increased subsequently time to time and enhanced to Rs.1,000/- per month. The plaintiff paid rent to Ila Dey upto March, 2011 and rent receipts were granted in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter rent from April to July, 2011 was paid for which no rent receipt was granted. Subsequently, plaintiff came to know that Ila Dey sold away the property to the defendant i.e. the opposite party. The plaintiff could not deposit rent before the Rent Controller. However, rent was paid to the defendant/opposite party who gave assurance to give pucca rent receipt but ultimately did not give the same and always received rent issuing kancha receipt. Subsequently, defendant asked the plaintiff to return the kancha receipts with further assurance that he would grant pucca rent receipts for the current month as well as for the month of May to June, 2011. Subsequently, defendant asked the plaintiff to return the kancha receipts with further assurance that he would grant pucca rent receipts for the current month as well as for the month of May to June, 2011. Plaintiff on good faith handed over the said kancha receipts to the defendant but the defendant did not return kancha receipts nor granted pucca receipts for the past and for current month. 3. Suddenly, the defendant put a padlock on the front gate of the common passage, which is for ingress and egress of the plaintiff and the plaintiff reported the matter to the local police station and also to the local people. Thereafter the defendant/opposite party opened the padlock from the common gate on the common passage. After the incident the petitioner filed the instant suit being title suit No.824 of 2012 narrating all these facts. The plaintiff made a prayer that the situation warranting an order of temporary injunction with an ad interim rule pending disposal of the injunction application restraining the defendant and his men and agents from in any way trying to put padlock or any other resistance on the gate of the common passage which is meant for ingress and egress of the plaintiff from and to his tenanted portion in the manner whatsoever. In the plaint, petitioner/plaintiff stated that cause of action of the instant suit arose on 26th May, 2012. After filing the suit the plaintiff moved an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 and prayed for an ex parte order of injunction and the learned trial court on hearing the petitioner being satisfied about the plaintiff’s status as a tenant under the previous landlady Ila Dey and thereafter under the defendant Tinkari Roy, who purchased the suit property and being satisfied that the present purchaser being the opposite party is trying to put padlock on the main gate of the entrance of the plaintiff found that the plaintiff has huge number of rent receipts and electric bills issued by the C.E.S.C. authorities and the plaintiff has his possession in the suit property as a tenant, so his right is to be protected and accordingly, an order of interim injunction is passed against the defendant directing the defendant to maintain status quo in respect of egress and ingress to the suit premises from the main gate till 2nd July, 2012. Petitioner/plaintiff was directed to comply with the provision under Order 39, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The interim order was continued from time to time and remained valid till 12th February, 2014. 4. During pendency of the suit and continuation of the ad interim order of injunction passed by the learned Trial Court the plaintiff found that the defendant/opposite party after coming to know about the interim order, soon after the service of notice the defendant put padlock on the gate of the common passage and as a result, the plaintiff has been compelled to stay outside the suit property. Under the aforesaid circumstances the plaintiff made a prayer for passing an order directing the defendant to remove the padlock from the gate of common passage so that the plaintiff may get free ingress and egress to the suit property from the main road. The copy of the application was served by the petitioner upon the defendant/present landlord. The defendant/opposite party submitted his written objection to the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that written objection the opposite party/defendant stated that the plaintiff has made out a false and baseless allegation and the application is clear abuse of process of law. It was stated by the defendant/opposite party that after his purchase he used separate entrance exclusively which the plaintiff never used at any point of time, over and above the plaintiff and his family members never reside in the back portion of the suit premises more than decades and at present some unknown persons are trying to occupy the suit premises, the suit premises is wrongly described, the electricity is consumed through the adjoining premises by the plaintiff’s men. The opposite party never blocked any passage as falsely alleged but it is adjoining premises owner who has blocked the opening through the wall between the two rooms and the plaintiff with ill motive wants to disturb defendant’s exclusive entrance door. 5. Learned Court below heard the matter and rejected the application filed on the reason that interim order was passed directing the defendant to maintain status quo in respect of ingress and egress to the suit premises from the main gate. Thereafter on which date the defendant put padlock in the common passage has not been mentioned by the plaintiff in the present application. Thereafter on which date the defendant put padlock in the common passage has not been mentioned by the plaintiff in the present application. The plaintiff did not approach the local police station along with instant order of injunction for the aforesaid purpose and ultimately it was held that interim order of injunction as passed by the Court is sufficient for the purpose of which the instant application has been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff and further held that the common passage has not been mentioned by the plaintiff in the present application, which is devoid of merit. Therefore, the learned Court below is not inclined to allow the same. As such the application was considered and rejected without cost and the interim order of injunction was extended till 12th February, 2014. 6. Against the order of rejection of the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure, the petitioner/plaintiff moved this re-visional application. 7. Mr. Ghosh learned Counsel appearing petitioner/plaintiff submits that it would be evident from the statements made in the plaint that the opposite party/defendant/present landlord tried to obstruct free ingress and egress of the plaintiff put a padlock on the entrance gate of the common passage and the said fact was reported to the local police station. With the help of police and local people defendant was compelled to open the padlock from the common passage and the plaintiff being apprehensive of facing similar situation filed the instant suit with a prayer for ad interim order of injunction and the learned Court below at the first instance was satisfied about the status of the petitioner/plaintiff and about his occupancy as a tenant on the basis of disclosed rent receipts and electric bills issued by the C.E.S.C. authorities, passed an order of status quo against the defendant directing defendant to maintain status quo in respect of ingress and egress to suit premises from the main road till 2nd July, 2012 and thereafter the interim order so passed was extended till 12th February, 2014. 8. Mr. Ghosh submits that suddenly and surprisingly on service of notice and coming to know of the ad interim order of status quo the defendant/present landlord got furious and put a padlock thereby creating obstruction to the plaintiff preventing him to get his free ingress and egress to the suit premises. 9. Mr. 8. Mr. Ghosh submits that suddenly and surprisingly on service of notice and coming to know of the ad interim order of status quo the defendant/present landlord got furious and put a padlock thereby creating obstruction to the plaintiff preventing him to get his free ingress and egress to the suit premises. 9. Mr. Ghosh submits that the petitioner/plaintiff was compelled to stay outside the suit premises because of such obstruction and accordingly, he moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer for direction upon the defendant to remove the padlock or any such resistance from the gate of the common passage so that the plaintiff may get free access to the suit property from the main road, failing which direction would be given upon the Officer-in-charge, Burtola police station to remove the padlock and to give free access to the petitioner/plaintiff. 10. Mr. Ghosh submits, since the defendant/opposite party put padlock during continuation of ad interim order of injunction the petitioner/plaintiff has no other alternative but to move the application for removal of padlock. Unfortunately, the learned Court below did not appreciate the scope of the petition and observed that ad interim order of status quo passed in the matter is sufficient and on that score rejected the application. 11. Mr. Ghosh submits that the petitioner/plaintiff had no knowledge about the fact that by putting padlock at the entrance gate the opposite party/defendant surreptitiously removed all belonging of the plaintiff and put his own padlock in the tenanted two rooms. However, on opposite party’s prayer Special Officer was appointed and he visited the premises to find out if in there alternative passage for ingress and egress and whether the front passage was kept under lock and key. The Special Officer appointed by this Court submitted a report from which it revealed that the front passage is under lock and key by the present landlord/opposite party and the opening on the partition wall was also closed. Both the tenanted rooms are under lock and key of the landlord/opposite party. 12. Mr. Ghosh submits since the defendant/opposite party put a padlock at the entrance gate, the petitioner/plaintiff had no access to the suit premises. However, the petitioner/plaintiff was having an idea that the articles and all belongings of the petitioner would be intact. Both the tenanted rooms are under lock and key of the landlord/opposite party. 12. Mr. Ghosh submits since the defendant/opposite party put a padlock at the entrance gate, the petitioner/plaintiff had no access to the suit premises. However, the petitioner/plaintiff was having an idea that the articles and all belongings of the petitioner would be intact. It was not possible for the petitioner to know the incident of removal of his belongings and putting of padlock on the doors of those two rooms by the landlord since the petitioner did not have any access. 13. Mr. Ghosh submits that the law of the land is well-settled on a point that even a trespasser cannot be evicted without due process of law. 14. Mr. Ghosh submits that there are huge number of recent receipts issued by the previous landlord in respect of the tenanted portion, there are several electric bills issued by the C.E.S.C. authorities in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and the learned Trial Court was prima facie satisfied about the status and occupancy of the petitioner/plaintiff in the tenanted portion. He submits it is now well-settled that during continuation of an interim order passed by a court of law if any wrong is done by any of the contesting parties in contravention of the subsisting interim order passed, the court has power to restore the possession status quo ante which was prevailing at the time of passing interim order. 15. Mr. Ghosh submits that this Court has got power to restore back the same possession which was prevailing at the time of filing the suit. 16. Mr. Ghosh submits that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case the petitioner/plaintiff need not go before the learned Trial Court. This Hon’ble Court is competent to pass order directing delivery of possession and free ingress and egress through common passage so long the opposite party did not get a decree of eviction and get the decree of eviction executed following the relevant provisions applicable under Code of Civil Procedure. 17. Mr. Ghosh also submits that after purchase of the suit property the opposite party/present landlord accepted rent and he has issued notice dated 7th September, 2012 through his learned Advocate Mr. 17. Mr. Ghosh also submits that after purchase of the suit property the opposite party/present landlord accepted rent and he has issued notice dated 7th September, 2012 through his learned Advocate Mr. Sudhir Sadhukhan intimating that the opposite party that his tenancy is determined on and from expiry of month of October, 2012 on various grounds including the default in payment of monthly rent, subletting to third person, causing annoyance and nuisance to the neighbours including the defendant/opposite party, reasonable requirement etc. and the petitioner/plaintiff was requested to quit, vacate and deliver up peaceful vacant khas possession of the said tenanted accommodation to the opposite party within the stipulated period, failing which the opposite party shall take the course of law before appropriate forum for eviction holding the petitioner responsible for all costs, mesne profits and consequences thereof. 18. Mr. Ghosh submits that the present landlord admitted the petitioner a tenant under him in respect of the two rooms on the ground floor of the premises along with common passage, common privy etc. on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- payable according to English calendar month. Therefore, the opposite party/present landlord cannot get the eviction by way of unlawful means, preventing the petitioner from entering the premises and also is not authorised to put padlock in those two rooms against which the petitioner is tenant and also get possession illegally without following due process of law and also by removal of all belongings and articles of the petitioner. 19. Mr. Ghosh submits that it would be clear from the notice served by the defendant/opposite party that the petitioner is admittedly a tenant in respect of the suit premises and it is evident that the petitioner is being evicted by the present landlord/opposite party by way of illegal means without following the procedures prescribed under law. 20. Mr. Ghosh submits that this Court has ample power to restore back possession and allow the petitioner to occupy the premises until and unless eviction decree is obtained by the present landlord and the decree is executed by initiation of a execution proceeding. 21. Mr. Ghosh cited two decisions in support of his submissions, one is reported in A.I.R. 1985 Calcutta 248 (Indian Cable Company Limited v. Smt. Sumitra Chakraborty). 21. Mr. Ghosh cited two decisions in support of his submissions, one is reported in A.I.R. 1985 Calcutta 248 (Indian Cable Company Limited v. Smt. Sumitra Chakraborty). He submits that in this case the plaintiff pleaded that the plaintiff had been in quiet and peaceful possession of the suit property until stated date when the defendant started abusing and harassing the plaintiff’s men and agents in the matter of getting access to the suit property and there was no allegation of dispossession from the suit property. What was being alleged was that the defendant was wrongfully putting padlock on the outer door thus making it difficult for the plaintiff’s men getting access to the suit room and that was a simple suit for injunction valued at Rs.50/-. While the subsequent suit was filed the subsequent suit was based on different cause of action, namely the dispossession itself which arose subsequently, this being a suit for recovery of possession on declaration of tenancy rights along with damages obviously the claim could not have been added to the earlier plaint pending in the court of munsif. In that case the Hon’ble Division Bench held where the tenant had been in peaceful enjoyment of the suit premises as a tenant until certain date in a month when they were dispossessed and the tenant had paid the rent for the month in question in advance and thus it was obvious that on the date when the landlady took over possession of the suit premises she knew it very well that she had no right to do so during the continuance of the tenancy of suit premises and in breach of the statutory protection under the Rent Act, and the tenant thrown out not only in breach of the provisions of the Rent Act, but also wrongfully and by abuse of process of criminal court at a point of time when the tenancy in his favour was still continuing, the tenant was entitled to be restored to possession even on an interlocutory application. 22. Mr. 22. Mr. Ghosh refers paragraph 11 of the said judgment in support of his submission that in that case the tenant/plaintiff was dispossessed before filing the suit but in the instant case the petitioner is on a better footing, he was dispossessed not only after filing the suit but also during pendency of the suit and also continuation of an interim order of status quo as regards his free ingress and egress through common passage. 23. Mr. Ghosh submits that the Hon’ble Division Bench also held in a court of equity wrongful acts are no passport to favour. The court to see that the law is observed. It was held that in exceptional cases court is expected to grant a mandatory injunction on an interlocutory application where the defendant is found to be stealing a march on the plaintiff. 24. Mr. Ghosh submits that in the instant case the opposite party has really got a march over the petitioner/plaintiff by putting a padlock not only on the front gate but also removing the articles and materials from the tenanted premises which were all inside the rooms and also putting the landlord’s padlock on the entrance gate of those two tenanted rooms. 25. Mr. Ghosh submits that this Court has ample power and jurisdiction to direct to remove the padlock from the main entrance gate as well as from the suit rooms and also to direct the defendant to allow the petitioner/plaintiff to occupy the premises. 26. Mr. Ghosh also cited another judgment reported in A.I.R. 1993 Calcutta 128 (Smt. Usha Ghosh v. Rabindra Nath Das and others). In that case during pendency of the execution proceeding the decree-holder/landlord obtained an administrative order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and got the decree executed and that point was brought before this Court and the Hon’ble Division Bench have held that possession can be taken by the court by properly execution of decree in accordance with law. When the Civil Procedure Code which is a complete Code in itself is applicable, it was a gross abuse of process of court in taking other process to get possession in the manner it has been done is not at all acceptable. When the Civil Procedure Code which is a complete Code in itself is applicable, it was a gross abuse of process of court in taking other process to get possession in the manner it has been done is not at all acceptable. The Hon’ble Court also held that obtaining possession by an illegal process is not permissible and the Hon’ble Court held that the manner in which the possession was taken was illegal and void. It was a gross abuse of process of court and the view of the Hon’ble Division Bench is that the executive magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass any order concerning civil rights of the people. 27. Mr. Ghosh submits that in the instant case during continuation of the interim order the opposite party/landlord who accepted the petitioner/plaintiff as his tenant and issued eviction notice to quit and vacate the premises, has obstructed his free egress and ingress firstly by putting padlock in front gate of common passage and thereafter surreptitiously removing his all belongings from two suit rooms during his absence and also putting his own padlock removing the tenant’s padlock. 28. Mr. Ghosh submits that the way the petitioner was evicted is unknown to law. The process followed is not sanctioned by law. This is in clear abuse of process during pendency of the suit as well as during continuation of interim order. 29. Mr. Ghosh submits if this situation or the incident so occurred is allowed and upheld by this Court then there would be no law to give protection to a tenant who is protected under the tenancy law. 30. Mr. Ghosh submits that in normal circumstances landlord should have come before this Court by filing an eviction suit for obtaining a decree of eviction and to execute the same through the executing court. It would be unlawful to get the administrative order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or to create obstruction at the main entrance and thereafter throw out the tenant from the suit premises. 31. Mr. Ghosh submits tenant’s right is well protected under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act until and unless a tenant is evicted following the due process of law, the landlord cannot adopt such a method to oust the lawful tenant and particularly when in there a pending suit and also in there existing interim order. 32. Mr. 31. Mr. Ghosh submits tenant’s right is well protected under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act until and unless a tenant is evicted following the due process of law, the landlord cannot adopt such a method to oust the lawful tenant and particularly when in there a pending suit and also in there existing interim order. 32. Mr. Ghosh submits that the fact which has come out in broad day light on the basis of the report of the Special Officer that the entrance gate is closed, under lock and key by the defendant/opposite party and both the rooms are under lock and key by the landlord and in such circumstances this Court should direct the defendant to give back possession to the petitioner/tenant and also allow the petitioner/tenant access to his tenanted portion. 33. Mr. Ghosh submits that the order impugned be set aside and the revisional application be allowed with the proper relief in the facts and circumstances of this case. 34. Mr. Ghoshal, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant/opposite party/present landlord, on the contrary, submits that by the order impugned the interim order was extended. Therefore, the order impugned is not a revisionable order but is an appealable order. 35. Mr. Ghoshal in support of his submissions cited one decision reported in 2001 (1) C.L.J. 689 (Smt. Rekha Patra v. Sm. Minu Chakraborty & ors.). He submits that the petitioner has better option by way of appeal as decided by the learned Judge in the aforesaid case. 36. Mr. Ghoshal submits the plaintiff in his plaint did not mention any existence of gate nor he stated in there any existence of door. 37. Mr. Ghoshal read over the statements made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the plaint. He submits that the petitioner/plaintiff prayed for an order for ingress and egress through the gate on common passage, therefore, trial is necessary. 38. Mr. Ghoshal submits this Court should not go in the disputed question of facts. He then submits that at the time of filing of the suit petitioner complained the said gate is the only passage for ingress and egress and the plaintiff reported the matter to the local police station. According to him, the same state of affairs is still continuing. 39. Mr. Ghoshal submis that the order of status quo would prevail on that state of affairs which was prevailing. According to him, the same state of affairs is still continuing. 39. Mr. Ghoshal submis that the order of status quo would prevail on that state of affairs which was prevailing. He further submits it was only complaint on the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner that after the service of notice upon the defendant the defendant has already put a padlock on the gate of the common passage and as a result of which the plaintiff has been compelled to stay outside the suit property. 40. Mr. Ghoshal submits on which date the padlock was put in was not mentioned. in there no complaint. He submits, therefore, this Court should not venture to go into that factual aspect. He further submits that the state of affairs on the date of filing the plaint i.e. 5th June, 2012 is still prevailing. Therefore, there cannot be any violation. The allegation of putting padlock is of no substance. 41. Mr. Ghoshal then submits that the interim order so passed and continued till 12th February, 2014 was vacated on 12th February, 2014, in there no proof to show that it is revived. He submits that the remedy of the petitioner is before the learned Court below where he can make a prayer for temporary/mandatory injunction but he cannot prefer application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for getting back possession. He also submits in this proceeding if any order is passed it would be preferential to the interest of the defendant/opposite party. According to him, if the petitioner is already dispossessed he will have to pray for permanent injunction. 42. Mr. Ghoshal also submits that there may be two eventualities, one is pre-issue dispossession and the other one is post-issue dispossession. Whatever may be the case the petitioner may pray for mandatory injunction for restoration of his possession. 43. Mr. Ghoshal submits that the defendant/landlord has specifically denied the allegation made in the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He submits that his client specifically stated, after his purchase he used separate entrance exclusively which the plaintiff never used at any point of time. Over and above the plaintiff and his family members never reside in the back portion of the suit premises more than decades and at present some unknown persons are trying to occupy the suit premises. He submits that his client specifically stated, after his purchase he used separate entrance exclusively which the plaintiff never used at any point of time. Over and above the plaintiff and his family members never reside in the back portion of the suit premises more than decades and at present some unknown persons are trying to occupy the suit premises. 44. Mr. Ghoshal submits his client made this specific statement and they never blocked the passage as falsely alleged but it is the adjoining premises owner who has blocked the boundary wall between the two rooms. 45. However, on query of this Court Mr. Ghoshal could not give any satisfactory answer, when the petitioner is not in occupation how his client being the defendant/opposite party accepted the status of the petitioner as tenant and issued an eviction notice under Section 6(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. But Mr. Ghosh submits that the Court should take note of the fact available on record and proceeded to dispose of the case. 46. Mr. Ghoshal submits this revisional application is not at all maintainable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The remedy of the petitioner is available before the learned trial Court. He referred the Special Officer’s report and submitted the present position is such that petitioner is neither in possession of the suit room or the suit premises. He has no access to the premises itself. 47. Mr. Ghoshal submits this revisional application should be dismissed having no merit at all. He also referred the judgment rendered in case of (Kishore Kumar Khaitan and anr. v. Praveen Kumar Singh) reported in 2006(3) S.C.C. 312 , paragraphs 5 to 7. He submits before passing any such interim order the learned Court below must come to a finding that the petitioner was in possession of the suit premises. 48. Mr. Ghoshal submits in the order passed by the learned Court below in there no such recording. Therefore, the learned Court below was right in refusing the prayer of the petitioner. 49. In reply, Mr. 48. Mr. Ghoshal submits in the order passed by the learned Court below in there no such recording. Therefore, the learned Court below was right in refusing the prayer of the petitioner. 49. In reply, Mr. Ghosh submits that a plain reading of the order passed on 6th June, 2012 would make ex facie clear that the learned court below have taken note of the facts about the occupancy and possession of the tenant in the suit premises for which a schedule was appended to the plaint and at that point of time since the plaintiff was being prevented to have free access to the suit premises through the common entrance gate, petitioner made a prayer for injunction by filing the suit with a definite pleadings in the plaint that the defendant/opposite party put a padlock on the gate which was removed with the help of local police and that is how the plaintiff/petitioner got entrance. However, on the basis of such averment and on the basis of the rent receipts and the electric bills and also considering the materials available before the learned Court below, the learned Court below passed the order of injunction ‘status quo’ which the opposite party violated on service of the order as well as the injunction petition in compliance of provisions under rule 3 of Order 39 of Code of Civil Procedure. 50. Mr. Ghosh submits that learned Advocate for the opposite party failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner’s obstruction was removed with the help of local people and the petitioner entered into the premises and the learned court below taking note of all these statements passed the order of status quo upon defendant preventing the defendant to create any obstruction in petitioner’s free ingress and egress. 51. Mr. Ghosh submits that the judgment of Kishore Kumar Khaitan (supra) was very much followed by the learned Court below. Therefore, the ratio of Krishna’s judgement is in no way affecting the order of injunction passed by the learned Court below. 52. Mr. Ghosh then submits that so far the extension of interim order is concerned, the petitioner/plaintiff is not at all aggrieved. He has never questioned the extension of interim order which was granted in his favour. Neither the defendant/opposite party questioned the order of extension. The status quo order was prevailing. However, Mr. 52. Mr. Ghosh then submits that so far the extension of interim order is concerned, the petitioner/plaintiff is not at all aggrieved. He has never questioned the extension of interim order which was granted in his favour. Neither the defendant/opposite party questioned the order of extension. The status quo order was prevailing. However, Mr. Ghosh submitted that during the subsistence of the interim order the petitioner moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for removing the padlock on 27th June, 2012. Therefore, Mr. Ghoshal’s submission that after the expiry of the interim order this petition was moved is totally incorrect. 53. Mr. Ghosh submits that, only after inspection of the Special Officer appointed by this Court, it was revealed not only the main entrance of the gate was closed but the padlock of two rooms under occupancy of the petitioner were removed by the landlord and the landlord/opposite party took possession of those two rooms by removing the petitioner’s articles. 54. Mr. Ghosh submits in there no disputed question of fact, everything is on record. He submits that eviction notice is a clear proof of the petitioner’s possession and his tenancy status. The opposite party who has issued this notice cannot question the same. He cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time which is not permissible. 55. Mr. Ghosh submits both the judgments cited by Mr. Ghoshal are of no help in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He however, submits that in view of 1993 judgement of the Calcutta High Usha Ghosh (supra) this Hon’ble Court have jurisdiction to direct the opposite party to deliver back possession to the petitioner. 56. Mr. Ghosh submits that the prayer in the petition be molded and the order of the learned Court below be set aside directing the defendant to remove padlock from the entrance gate and also to give back possession on the basis of report submitted by the Special Officer which is not denied and disputed by the opposite party rather relied upon by the opposite party himself. 57. This Court anxiously considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel representing both the sides and also took note of material facts available and scrutinised the records and particularly the report submitted by the Special Officer appointed by this Court and also considered the judgments cited by both the parties. 57. This Court anxiously considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel representing both the sides and also took note of material facts available and scrutinised the records and particularly the report submitted by the Special Officer appointed by this Court and also considered the judgments cited by both the parties. Now the question arise whether the order impugned passed by the learned Court below is lawful and valid and if this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances can pass an order upon the defendant/opposite party to deliver back possession to the tenant removing two padlocks from two suit rooms and also direct the defendant/opposite party to allow the petitioner to have free access through common entrance gate of the premises in question. 58. Let me consider the rival contentions. It is plaintiff’s case as specifically made out in the plaint that the petitioner was originally inducted as a tenant by the previous landlord Ela De and the initial rent was Rs.80/- per month according to English calendar. It was increased time to time to the tune of Rs.1,000/- p.m. Said Ela De transferred the property to the defendant/opposite party who is the present landlord. Tenancy was attorned and petitioner claimed that rents were also accepted by the opposite party issuing kancha rent receipt. Thereafter on assurance to give pucca rent receipt those kancha receipts were taken back but no pucca receipt was granted. It was specifically averred in paragraph 8 that the present landlord/opposite party wanted to put a padlock on the main entrance gate on common passage thereby preventing the petitioner to have his free ingress and egress in the suit premises. However, that padlock was removed with the help of local people and police. Since the petitioner was prevented in this way on one occasion the petitioner instituted this suit with a prayer that the defendant be directed to remove the padlock or any other resistance from the gate of the common passage so that the petitioner may get free access to the suit property from the main road forthwith, failing which direction be given to the officer-in-charge, Burtala police station to remove the padlock and to give free access to the plaintiff. The petitioner also moved an injunction application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was taken up for hearing. The petitioner also moved an injunction application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was taken up for hearing. The said application was moved ex parte on 6th June, 2012 and learned Court below considered the application and found that the petitioner was a tenant under one Ila Dey and thereafter under the opposite party/defendant since after purchase of the property by the defendant, Tankari Roy. The learned Court below considered the eviction notice issued by the defendant/opposite party being the present landlord and also number of rent receipts and electric bills produced by the petitioner/plaintiff in possession of the suit property and found that the petitioner is a tenant in the suit property and therefore his right is to be protected. Accordingly, interim injunction was passed against the defendant directing the defendant to maintain status quo in respect of ingress and egress of the suit premises from the main road till 2nd July, 2012. It is the petitioner’s case that coming to know about the interim order passed by the learned Court below upon notice and receipt of the summons the opposite party/defendant put padlock on the main entrance gate over common passage. The petitioner stated in his application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure that since the opposite party after the interim order was passed put a padlock it has become necessary to pass an order directing the opposite party to remove the padlock from the gate of common passage so that the petitioner may get free ingress and egress to the suit property from the main road, failing which necessary direction may be given to the officer-in-charge, Burtola police station to remove the same and to give free access to the petitioner/plaintiff to the suit property from the main road. However, the opposite party denied the allegations. He stated that he never blocked the passage, rather it is adjoining premises owner who has blocked the opening through the wall between the two premises and the plaintiff with ill motive wanted to disturb defendant’s exclusive entrance. With this averment the opposite/defendant had accepted the petitioner’s tenancy and in fact, he also accepted that different passage was there for free ingress and egress for the petitioner/tenant. With this averment the opposite/defendant had accepted the petitioner’s tenancy and in fact, he also accepted that different passage was there for free ingress and egress for the petitioner/tenant. However, the learned Court below rejected the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure holding that the interim order of status quo passed by this Court is enough to protect the interest of the petitioner. On the same date the learned Trial Court also extended the interim order till 12th February, 2014. 59. Since extension of interim injunction is in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, in there no question of preferring appeal by the petitioner against the order. This Court is satisfied that the interim order already passed was extended by the order and the petitioner is not at all prejudiced, therefore, plea of appealability of the order taken by the learned Counsel for the opposite party is without any merit. Accordingly, submission made by Mr. Ghoshal about the maintainability of the revisional application is of no substance. This Court is of the view that in there no question of preferring appeal since the petitioner is not at all aggrieved against the extension of the interim order. Therefore, revisional application filed by the petitioner is maintainable. 60. It is evident from the pleadings of both sides that plaintiff is admittedly a tenant under opposite party and opposite party served a notice to quit and vacate the suit premises on termination of tenancy. Petitioner was prevented from his free ingress and egress to the suit premises and the problem was solved with the intervention of the local police. Since he was prevented he instituted the present suit and moved an application for temporary injunction against the opposite party and the learned Court below passed an interim order of injunction directing defendant to maintain status quo in respect of egress and ingress of the suit premises from the main road till 2nd July, 2012 which was extended till 12th February, 2014. Coming to know about the order the defendant again put in padlock and the petitioner moved the application before the learned Court to remove the same. At the time of argument of this matter before this Court learned Counsel for opposite party submitted that petitioner’s entrance is different, therefore, he cannot make a prayer for unlocking the main entrance gate. Coming to know about the order the defendant again put in padlock and the petitioner moved the application before the learned Court to remove the same. At the time of argument of this matter before this Court learned Counsel for opposite party submitted that petitioner’s entrance is different, therefore, he cannot make a prayer for unlocking the main entrance gate. However, this Court to know about the correct fact appointed a special officer to enquire whether in there free ingress and egress of the petitioner’s tenancy in respect of two rooms on the ground floor of the premises or obstructed by the opposite party/landlord and whether in there any such alternative way for egress or ingress of the petitioner’s tenanted room in question. The special officer visited the spot and submitted a report that the opening in the partition wall was closed by pucca construction and the front gate is under lock and key by the opposite party/landlord. It was also found by the special officer that both the rooms against which the petitioner is tenant are in the opposite party’s exclusive control and possession. Goods and articles lying in those two rooms are all belonging to the opposite party/defendant as claimed by the defendant. The petitioner stated at the time of inspection that there were several goods belonging to him, but at present he did not find any of them that is how it revealed for first time at the time of inspection that all belongings of the petitioner/tenant was removed from those two rooms. It is on record that the opposite party/defendant/landlord admitted the landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and him. The learned Court below also found that the relationship exists and the petitioner is a tenant in respect of those two rooms for which the opposite party issued notice to quit and vacate the premises. Therefore, in there no factual dispute from the materials available on record and also from the statement made by the parties in their plaint and objection that the petitioner is admittedly a tenant in respect of the scheduled property in the plaint. His free ingress and egress was obstructed by the opposite party putting a padlock on the main entrance gate over common passage. His free ingress and egress was obstructed by the opposite party putting a padlock on the main entrance gate over common passage. All articles belonging to him kept in the two tenanted rooms were removed by the landlord and the landlord took possession by exercising extra power which he is not supposed to exercise. Thus it is now crystal clear that the petitioner/tenant was unlawfully dispossessed by a noble method adopted by the landlord/opposite party without following due process of law. Therefore, in there no dispute as regards the factual aspect of the matter. Accordingly, Mr. Ghoshal’s submission for holding trial to come to a conclusion do not have any force at all. The arguments advanced by Mr. Ghoshal is of no substance and as such rejected. It is needless to mention that order passed by the learned Court is quite clear as regard possession of the tenant in respect of his tenanted portion. It is common knowledge and experience that tenant who was prevented from the main entrance gate should have access in his tenanted portion. Under no circumstances the tenant can have any knowledge about removal of all his belongings from the rooms, since he has no access to the rooms. However, this has come to notice when the special officer visited the site and submitted his report that two rooms were in possession of the opposite party/landlord. It is on record that the opposite party/landlord has accepted the relation between him and petitioner as tenant and issued notice of eviction under Section 6(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. In that view of the matter the ratio of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan (supra) is in no way coming in aid to the opposite party/defendant. Accordingly, the learned Court below is wrong in its finding that the order of status quo passed in the suit is adequate and no further order need be passed. The learned Judge in effect rejected the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner which he ought not to have done. His decision to that effect is erroneous in law and suffers from material irregularity and as such set aside. 61. The learned Judge in effect rejected the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner which he ought not to have done. His decision to that effect is erroneous in law and suffers from material irregularity and as such set aside. 61. Now the question arises in this peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, when the Court is satisfied that during subsistence of status quo the opposite party/landlord totally dispossessed the petitioner/tenant most illegally and unfairly whether this Court has jurisdiction to restore back the possession or put the clock back by restoring status quo ante in favour of the petitioner. In this regard, the Division Bench judgment of this Hon’ble Court is giving a clear guideline. Similar situation arose in case of (Smt. Usha Ghosh) (supra) and the Hon’ble Division Bench held where the execution has been made not by the executing court in the manner provided under Civil Procedure Code, but in a manner which amounts to a fraud upon the statute, the question cannot be said to be within the exclusive jurisdiction of executing court under Section 47. If the decree was not executed in accordance with order of the executing court it does not come within the scope of Section 47 of the Code. The execution was on the face of it void and in view of Hon’ble Appeal Court the same can be challenged wherever it is sought to be enforced and accordingly the judgment-debtor is entitled to relief before the court. It is now well-settled that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree but if the decree is passed without jurisdiction is nullity, even at the execution stage it can be questioned. In that case the judgment-debtor was dispossessed in a manner which was gross abuse of process of court and when the process was void by gross abuse of process of court, somebody’s eviction is not an eviction in the eye of law. It is firmly established principle that Order 21 of the Code provides a complete procedure for executing a decree and as such a decree could not be executed and possession of the property could not be taken by taking recourse to means beyond the provisions of Order 21 or by extra judicial methods. It is firmly established principle that Order 21 of the Code provides a complete procedure for executing a decree and as such a decree could not be executed and possession of the property could not be taken by taking recourse to means beyond the provisions of Order 21 or by extra judicial methods. In case of Smt. Usha Ghosh (supra) the decree-holder obtained possession by obtaining an administrative order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during pendency of the execution proceeding and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to set aside that order and put back the tenant in possession holding that the order under Section 144 is administrative in nature and not judicial or quasi-judicial. Judicial Magistrate can pass ex parte order where emergent situation arose. 62. In that case no notice was given to the judgment-debtor and no hearing was given. The order was ex parte, admittedly there was no urgency involved in such a case which had warranted the necessity of passing an order for preventing public disorder. No proceeding has been drawn up, no show-cause was issued and the judgment-debtor was not heard before the order was passed, the manner in which power was exercised by Executive Magistrate in the facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicated that the order was passed for an unauthorised purpose. However, taking over possession by that process was not approved by the Hon’ble Division Bench. The Division Bench held that this is not permissible under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. It was also found by the Hon’ble Division Bench that Officer-in-Charge, Titagarh Police Station also had acted in collusion with the decree-holder inasmuch on the very day the Executive Magistrate passed an order directing the police authorities to submit a report and the police authorities, it appears in course of same day and with an unprecedented speed, submitted a got up report that there was a likelihood of resistance at the time of taking over possession. Therefore, in there no doubt that this Court have power and jurisdiction to restore back possession in such a situation. 63. In the present case, all rights and interests of the tenant/petitioner is fully protected under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act which was definitely violated by an extra procedure which is not permitted under any law. Therefore, in there no doubt that this Court have power and jurisdiction to restore back possession in such a situation. 63. In the present case, all rights and interests of the tenant/petitioner is fully protected under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act which was definitely violated by an extra procedure which is not permitted under any law. This is a clear case of deprivation of property without any authority of law. Article 300A of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall deprive of his property save by authority of law. In the instant case, the deprivation of property was made by the opposite party/landlord by an illegal means without following due process of law and without following the provisions framed under the Premises Tenancy Act for eviction of a tenant. 64. Although Mr. Ghoshal appearing for the landlord submitted possession was taken prior to passing interim order but fact remains, after passing of interim order, landlord put the padlock surreptitiously by removing the articles of tenant in both the suit rooms. Therefore, definitely, it would be a post-suit dispossession and further dispossession took place during subsistence of interim order. 65. The other Division Bench judgment delivered in case of Indian Cables Co. Ltd. (supra) the case of pre-dispossession was in question. In that case the Hon’ble Division Bench held where the tenant had been in peaceful enjoyment of the suit premises as a tenant until certain date in a month when they were dispossessed and the tenant had paid the rent for the month in question in advance and thus it was obvious that on the date when the landlady took over possession of the suit premises she knew it very well that she had no right to do so during the continuance of the tenancy and in breach of the statutory protection under the Rent Act, and the tenant had been thrown out not only in breach of the provisions of the Rent Act but also wrongfully and by abuse of process of criminal court at a point of time when the tenancy in his favour was still continuing the tenant was entitled to be restored to possession even on an interlocutory application. 66. Under such circumstances the action taken by the opposite party/landlord is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Rent Act. 66. Under such circumstances the action taken by the opposite party/landlord is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Rent Act. He did all mischief which amount to gross abuse of process of law and also violative of the order passed by the learned Civil Court. Therefore, it would be the duty of the Court to restore back possession to render justice and to set right grievous wrong. Be it noted that if any dispossession is made by gross abuse of process of court or in violation of an order passed by a learned Court, it is the duty to restore back possession. It may be at whatever stage of the proceeding, the petitioner who is so dispossessed by unlawful manner and clear violation of constitutional mandate should be restored back possession. 67. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that in there gross violation of procedures. in there violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, in there gross violation of provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, in there violation of interim order passed and during substance of interim order the opposite party/landlord adopted a procedure to get possession which is exercise of extra power which he is not authorised to exercise. 68. Therefore, the defendant is directed to restore back possession to the petitioner/tenant and also allow the petitioner to have his free ingress and egress to the suit premises until disposal of the suit or until a decree of eviction is passed and executed by a competent court of law. However, whatever observation is made in this order would in no way affect the proceeding pending before the learned Court below. The defendant is directed to restore back possession of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of communication of this order. In case possession is not delivered by the defendant, Burtala police station is directed to render all police help so that petitioner can get back his possession of the suit premises. 69. For the foregoing reasons the order impugned passed by the learned Court below so far it relates to rejection of application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned is set aside and the revisional application is allowed. 70. Mr. Ghoshal, prays for stay of operation of this order. Prayer made by him is considered. 71. 69. For the foregoing reasons the order impugned passed by the learned Court below so far it relates to rejection of application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned is set aside and the revisional application is allowed. 70. Mr. Ghoshal, prays for stay of operation of this order. Prayer made by him is considered. 71. The way the petitioner was evicted before passing a decree by a competent civil court do not call for any stay or any order to be passed in favour of the defendant/landlord/opposite party. Accordingly, prayer for stay is refused.