JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. Being unsuccessful in connection with the judgment dated 18.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court at Alipore in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 81 of 2015, by which the learned First Appellate Court reversed the order dated 10.02.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), rd Court in Title Suit No. 12 of 2015, the petitioner has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed for setting aside the impugned order of the First Appellate Court on multi spoked grounds. 2. According to the petitioner, the learned First Appellate Court erred in not considering the deed of conveyance dated 19th March of 2007, by which the present petitioner became the owner of the property. Learned Court below failed to appreciate that the contesting opposite parties have miserably failed to show any document which reveals their possession in the suit property. On the contrary, it will be evident that since August 2014, the dealer of HPCL did not carry on the business and no supply was made by the present opposite party No. 2 since August 2014. The learned Court below also erred in ignoring the letter dated 2nd January, 2015. This apart, the police report and the subsequent events since the death of Utpal Sengupta was not considered by the First Appellate Court in its proper perspectives. He also contended that alleged newly created dealership agreement was a product of afterthought and the learned First Appellate Court was totally confused with regard to the status and the nomenclature of the parties of the suit. 3. Ventilating his all such grievances he has prayed for vacating the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court at Alipore. As against this, the contesting opposite party No.2 contended that the impugned order is quite unimpeachable because the said Court has considered all the legal aspects and factual aspects in its proper perspectives. 4. In the interest of effective adjudication, factual aspects needs to be revisited. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner’s case in a capsulated form is such that he has acquired the suit property by virtue of a deed of conveyance dated March 19, 2007 and that was executed by one Usha Rani Banerjee, one Ashok Pathak and one Smt. Rina Mukherjee, who were the heirs Chandi Madhab Banerjee since deceased. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner’s case in a capsulated form is such that he has acquired the suit property by virtue of a deed of conveyance dated March 19, 2007 and that was executed by one Usha Rani Banerjee, one Ashok Pathak and one Smt. Rina Mukherjee, who were the heirs Chandi Madhab Banerjee since deceased. The said Chandi Madhab Banerjee granted a lease for a period of 15 years commencing from November 11, 1974 on certain terms and conditions to the predecessor-in-interest of defendant No. 2, being one Caltex India Limited, and the husband of defendant No. 1 was Utpal Sengupta, who as partners of one Power Pack India, was acting as dealer of the present opposite party No. 2 and ran a petrol pump at the suit property. The said lease expired on and from November 10, 1989 but the present opposite party No. 2, through his said dealer being M/s Power Pack India, continued to occupy the said property without any authority. In August 2014, the plaintiff noticed that the suit premises was lying vacant and ascertained that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 being unable to carry on business, abandoned the said premises. The plaintiff/petitioner upon inspection found that the suit premises had become a den of anti-social elements and taxi drivers used to park their cars at night. 5. In such circumstances, the plaintiff took physical and actual possession of the suit property on 3rd January, 2015 and has been in such actual physical possession of the suit property. Thereafter, the defendants/opposite parties tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. In order to exert pressure and to oust the plaintiff petitioner, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 assembled around the suit property on 2nd January, 2015 and 8th January, 2015 with local muscle men, who were with deadly weapons. In such circumstances, plaintiff approached the local police authorities. It is specific assertion of the plaintiff/petitioner that he has acquired right, title and interest of the suit property by registered deed, mutated his name and has been paying taxes to the Municipal Corporation. He has filed the title suit for a decree for perpetual injunction as the owner of the suit property and also prayed for other remedies as available. 6. He has filed the title suit for a decree for perpetual injunction as the owner of the suit property and also prayed for other remedies as available. 6. On perusal of his application under Order 39 Rule (1) and (2), I find it is almost the replicated version of his plaint case. Opposite party No. 2 contested the said injunction application and wanted to show the other side of the shield. According to them, Chandi Madhab Banerjee leased out vacant land to Caltex India Limited, which is presently known as Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. Opposite Party No. 2 appointed one Utpal Sengupta as a dealer for the retail outlet in the suit property and that dealership agreement was renewed from time to time till the death of Mr. Utpal Sengupta. On 29.12.2014, widow of Utpal Sengupta expressed her unwillingness to run the business and as a result on 2nd January, 2015, the present opposite party No. 2, has appointed M/s. Woodland Service Station as a dealer on temporary basis to operate the said retail outlet. The copy of the notes of handing over and taking over possession dated 02.01.2015 were also informed to the local police station. Chandi Madhab Banerjee filed a suit for eviction bearing Title Suit No. 17 of 1993 but the said suit was ultimately dismissed for default. In view of promulgamation of Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act 1981, this defendant/opposite party No. 2 began to deposit rent in the name of thika controller with effect from 18.01.1982 and the information slip issued by thika controller speaks that the said property is a thika tenanted subject and that proceeding is going on before the thika tenant controller. Ventilating their such grievances, opposite party contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide an issue, which is the subject matter of thika tenant controller. Without evicting him by due process of law, the plaintiff petitioner has taken so called possession with the help of muscle men and bouncers and had raised boundary wall as well as affixed some sign boards etc., in the suit property only to frustrate the rights of the opposite party No. 2. 7. Without evicting him by due process of law, the plaintiff petitioner has taken so called possession with the help of muscle men and bouncers and had raised boundary wall as well as affixed some sign boards etc., in the suit property only to frustrate the rights of the opposite party No. 2. 7. At the time of hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff petitioner contended that he is in possession of the suit property on and from 03.01.2015 and so the injunction order passed by the learned Trial Court should be maintained. He has made a forceful submission that he has purchased the suit property from the owner by registered deed of conveyance and as the suit property has become the den of an anti-social, he has informed the local police station and also filed an application under Section 144 (2) Cr.P.C. Being armed with the said order of Executive Magistrate he has taken the possession, established his right by raising boundary wall and affixed sign board etc. According to him, the lease deed not being renewed, there was no impediment for registering a conveyance deed. Therefore, his such possession cannot be disturbed. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party challenged the contention of his adversary contending inter alia that since the promulgamation of Thika Tenancy Act, the opposite party No. 2 has become a tenant directly under the state and accordingly he has been paying rent to the thika controller, who is in seisin over the dispute. He categorically argued that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide any issue related to thika property as well as thika tenancy in view of the amendment of the said Act. Opposite party No. 2 has taken the leased out tenancy from the then owner and has been in possession through the dealer. Practically HPCL caters the need of smooth supplying of petrol and diesel to the citizens of Calcutta, he added. Their such possession was not upset by any legal authority. 8. In course of hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that since August 2014, opposite party No. 2 or opposite party No. 1 could not run the business in the suit property. It is true that in one occasion HPCL has written to his dealer for not raising the stock in terms of their agreement. 8. In course of hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that since August 2014, opposite party No. 2 or opposite party No. 1 could not run the business in the suit property. It is true that in one occasion HPCL has written to his dealer for not raising the stock in terms of their agreement. It is admitted position that HPCL has given a stricture to their former dealer for the self-same cause. Per contra, the opposite party admitted that it is true that he could not store the requisite quantity of fuel as per norms but that does not mean business transaction was not there. He pointed out that they were carrying on smoke emission test there and Pollution Control Board’s order to that effect was carried out by them. It is admitted position, that the defendant No. 2 was in possession since the lease deed agreement to 2nd January, 2015. One of the partners of Power Pack India Limited, i.e. Utpal Sengupta died on 28.12.2014 and on 29.12.2014 his widow wife expressed her unwillingness to HPCL to continue the business. Accordingly, HPCL has appointed an ad hoc dealer and they have mutually handed over and taken over of the possession of the suit property on 2nd January, 2015 and on 3rd January, 2015 the plaintiff has taken possession by the help of muscle men. On being asked by this Court, at the time of hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that they have taken possession since they have purchase deed and original opposite party No. 1 was reluctant to continue with their business. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff has relied on the following decisions:- (1) (2011) 3 SCC 710 [Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Chembur Service Station]. On perusal of the same, I find that the Hon’ble Judges took the divergent views. (2) AIR 1989 Supreme Court 2097 [Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his L.R.S. Vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao]. I would like to discuss it later. (3) Learned Defence Counsel relied on the decision reported in (2016) 3 SCC 343 [Boorugu Mahadev & Sons & Anr. Vs. Sirigiri Narasing Rao & Ors.]. While passing the said judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court relied on the judgment reported in 2014 (9) SCC 1978. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao]. I would like to discuss it later. (3) Learned Defence Counsel relied on the decision reported in (2016) 3 SCC 343 [Boorugu Mahadev & Sons & Anr. Vs. Sirigiri Narasing Rao & Ors.]. While passing the said judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court relied on the judgment reported in 2014 (9) SCC 1978. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party contended that Revisional Court is not entitled to reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of conclusion of appellate authority. I have gone through the said decision very meticulously and I cannot help quoting relevant part of para 43 page 101 of said judgment i.e. ‘a finding of fact recorded by court/authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the irregularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.’ Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party referred that judgment, which in my humble view, would not help the opposite party in any way. 9. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.’ Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party referred that judgment, which in my humble view, would not help the opposite party in any way. 9. In the judgment reported in AIR 1989 SCC 2097 in para 8 page 210, Hon’ble Apex Court held ‘it is a settled law in this country that where a person is in settled position, possession of property he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by law.’ Hon’ble Apex Court also reminds us about the finding of the Privy Council case of Midnapore Jamindari Company Limited Vs. Naresh Narayan Roy AIR 1924 Privy Council page 144. Wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court indirectly contended that no one can be dispossessed without due process of law. In such circumstances, it can be said that the plaintiff petitioner has taken possession in a manner which is anything but fair. 10. Since the dawn of civilisation, the concept of possession was there. Through the passage of time, customary rules of society, time to time concept of possession has been changed but acquisition of possession is the main thing which is still static. 11. The modes of acquisition are two in numbers, namely ‘Taking’ and ‘Delivery’. Taking is the acquisition of possession without the consent of the previous possessor. The thing taken may or may not have been already in the possession of someone else, and in either case the taking of it may be either rightful or wrongful. Delivery, on the other hand, is the acquisition of possession with the consent and cooperation of the previous possessor. Actual delivery is the transfer of possession. Therefore, there are possessory remedies also. A wrongful possessor has the rights of an owner with respect to all persons except earlier possessors. Even a wrong doer, who is deprived of his possession, can recover it from any person whatever, simply on the ground of his possession. Even the true owner, who takes his own, may be forced in this way to restore it to the wrong doer and will not be permitted to set up his own superior title to it. Even a wrong doer, who is deprived of his possession, can recover it from any person whatever, simply on the ground of his possession. Even the true owner, who takes his own, may be forced in this way to restore it to the wrong doer and will not be permitted to set up his own superior title to it. He must first give up his possession and then proceed in due course of law for the recovery of the thing on the ground of his ownership. The intention of the law is that every possessor shall be entitled to retain and recover his possession, until deprived of it by a judgment according to law. Legal remedies thus appointed for the production of possession even against ownership are called possessory, while those available for the protection of ownership itself may be distinguished as proprietary. 12. The evils of violence of self-help are deemed so serious that it must be discarded by taking away all advantages which any one derives from it. Therefore, it was considered unjust that a man should be allowed by violence to transfer the heavy burden of proof from his own shoulders to those of his opponent. He who takes a thing by force must restore it to him from whom he has taken it. 13. On perusal of the scenario of the present case it is crystal clear that the plaintiff/petitioner has taken so called possession otherwise than in accordance with law and on the basis of his such possession, he claimed for an injunction, which is an equitable relief. If such illegal action is considered favourably for the purpose of granting injunction in that case there would be a legal tyranny. Without adhering to the established legal principle if anybody can take the possession of the property with the help of bouncers and shall come to Court with a prayer for injunction, he should not be permitted to take that advantage. On the contrary, he should be shown exit door instantly. Nearly 92 years back, Privy Council while dealing with the case of Midnapore Jamindari Company Limited –Vs.- Naresh Narayan Roy, AIR 1924 Privy Council held ‘in India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession, they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a Court.’ 14. On the contrary, he should be shown exit door instantly. Nearly 92 years back, Privy Council while dealing with the case of Midnapore Jamindari Company Limited –Vs.- Naresh Narayan Roy, AIR 1924 Privy Council held ‘in India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession, they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a Court.’ 14. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and the legal principles followed in our country, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court at Alipore does not warrant any inference. Accordingly, the impugned order of the First Appellate Court is hereby affirmed. Observation made by this Court is only for the purpose of this revisional application and this Court has not gone into the merits of the suit. 15. The revisional application stands dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.5000/-. 16. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned First Appellate Court as well as learned Trial Court for their information and taking necessary action in accordance with law. The learned Trial Court shall dispose of the suit in accordance with law without being influenced by the observation made above. 17. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.