JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. 1. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day’s list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay. 2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 10th February, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 2397 (W) of 2017 (B. Garden Krira Samity & Anr. Vs. Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors.). 3. The appellants before us are the authorities of Howrah Municipal Corporation including the Howrah Municipal Corporation. 4. By the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the order of the Commissioner of Howrah Municipal Corporation, which was rendered on 21st December, 2016, was set aside with a direction upon the said Commissioner to consider the matter afresh strictly in the light of the observations/directions of the order passed in WP 12429 (W) of 2016, within a certain timeframe. 5. We may observe at this stage that the authorities as well as the Howrah Municipal Corporation had preferred an appeal against the judgment and order dated 19th September, 2016, that was passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 12429 (W) of 2016, pursuant to which, the Commissioner rendered his decision on 21st December, 2016, which became the subject matter of challenge in WP 2397 (W) of 2017, wherefrom the impugned judgment and order emanates. That appeal, being MAT 661 of 2017 with CAN 5365 of 2017 was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 2nd August, 2017, upon taking note of the fact that a decision was rendered by the Commissioner of Howrah Municipal Corporation in the meanwhile on 21st December, 2016, which was a subject matter of challenge in the subsequent writ petition taken out by the writ petitioners, being WP 2397 of 2017. As such, the Division Bench was of the view that the appeal had been rendered in fructuous upon passing of the order by the Commissioner of Howrah Municipal Corporation on 21st December, 2016 and no order was required to be passed in the appeal and the application for stay which stood disposed of accordingly. 6. As such, the Division Bench was of the view that the appeal had been rendered in fructuous upon passing of the order by the Commissioner of Howrah Municipal Corporation on 21st December, 2016 and no order was required to be passed in the appeal and the application for stay which stood disposed of accordingly. 6. We notice that when the impugned judgment and order dated 10th February, 2017, was rendered, the learned Single Judge took notice of the order dated 19th September, 2016, passed in the previous writ petition which has since merged in the order dated 2nd August, 2017, passed by the Division Bench in MAT 661 of 2017 with CAN 5365 of 2017. We are, therefore, required to look into the order of the Commissioner of Howrah Municipal Corporation dated 21st December, 2016, in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench in the judgment and order dated 2nd August, 2017, without taking further notice of any observation made by the learned Single Judge on 19th September, 2016, in the previous writ petition [WP 12429(W) of 2016]. 7. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the learned Single Judge appears to have substantially referred to and relied on the judgment and order dated 19th September, 2016 passed in WP 12429 (W) of 2016. As observed earlier, the said judgment and order has since merged in the judgment and order dated 2nd August, 2017 passed by the Division Bench in MAT 661 of 2017 with CAN 5365 of 2017. While setting aside the order dated 21st December, 2016, which was passed by the Commissioner of Howrah Municipal Corporation, the learned Single Judge has made the following observations:- “It can be reasonably inferred from the meaningful reading of the aforementioned order that the allegation was made by the petitioner against the action of the Corporation in wrongfully and illegally taking over the possession of the demised premises. The co-ordinate Bench directed the commissioner to ensure that no commercial activities in any form is carried out therein and the commissioner should determine whether the premises is let out on the days when the sporting activities do not take place and whether revenue is earned there from. If so whether such revenue is utilised for the purpose of the society for which it is constituted. If so whether such revenue is utilised for the purpose of the society for which it is constituted. It was further indicated whether the installation of the mobile tower confirms to the object and purpose of the society. 8. There was a sufficient indication in the said order what the commissioner is required to determine. 9. My endeavour has failed to find out from the impugned order passed by the commissioner that any of such points have been considered. The observations of the commissioner run counter to the stand of the Howrah Municipal Corporation taken in the suit filed before the Civil Court. If the stand of the Corporation is considered to be correct that the petitioner voluntarily surrendered its leasehold rights by delivering the possession to the Corporation, there is no occasion to proceed and declare the lease deed to be cancelled, terminated and/or rejected. Furthermore, such termination is made on the premise that the lease was unregistered one. 10. It is a matter of evidence whether the commissioner has a power to terminate the lease when the lease was executed by the Howrah Municipal Corporation. The commissioner appears to have usurped all the authorities of the corporation undermining the limitation set up in the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act. There is no hesitation in my mind that the commissioner have acted in a bias manner and the entire decision has been taken with the closed mind and inclined towards the corporation. 11. This Court, therefore, can not sustain the said order, which is hereby set aside.” 12. The learned Single Judge also made the following observation, which is required to be taken notice of:- “Equally this Court cannot overlook the admitted fact that the petitioner has not been permitted to enter into the office set up at the demised premises despite the specific order passed by this Court in a earlier writ petition. There is an apparent suppression of fact before the learned District Judge at the time of the admission of an appeal and passing of the ex parte ad interim order restraining the petitioner from disturbing and/or ousting the Corporation from possession in respect of the demised premises.” 13. There is an apparent suppression of fact before the learned District Judge at the time of the admission of an appeal and passing of the ex parte ad interim order restraining the petitioner from disturbing and/or ousting the Corporation from possession in respect of the demised premises.” 13. The learned Single Judge, as it appears, has observed that there was an apparent suppression of fact before the learned District Judge at the time of admission of the appeal and passing of the ex parte ad interim order by the District Court. However, we find from the records that Title Suit No. 1175 of 2016 was filed before the learned 2nd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Howrah, by the Howrah Municipal Corporation against B. Gardern Krira Samity on 6th September, 2016, where the following statement was made in paragraph 10 of the plaint:- “10. That the plaintiff came to know subsequently that the defendant filed writ application before the Hon’ble High Court and no order has yet been passed.” 14. As such, it cannot be said that the writ proceedings were not brought to the notice of the learned District Judge, Howrah. 15. Be that as it may, one paragraph of the plaint which was filed on 6th September, 2016, being paragraph 7, is required to be taken notice of:- “7. That the plaintiff states that the defendant subsequently on voluntarily surrendered lease hold property in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff thereafter took possession over the suit property and at present the plaintiff has been possessing over the suit property by doing all sorts of overt-acts. It is stated that the defendant already vacated the suit property by delivering khas possession in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff craves leave to file the document and order sheet at the time of hearing of the suit.” 16. In the order dated 21st December, 2016, the Commissioner of Howrah Municipal Corporation has made certain pertinent observations with regard to the lease agreement, which are required to be reproduced here-in-below:- “(a) The said Lease Agreement is not a Registered one. (b) B. Garden Krira Samity has categorically declared that they are having their office at 73, Danesh Seikh Lane, Howrah. (c) The agreement pertains to more or less 10 bigas of land. (b) B. Garden Krira Samity has categorically declared that they are having their office at 73, Danesh Seikh Lane, Howrah. (c) The agreement pertains to more or less 10 bigas of land. (d) That the HMC agreed to lease out the said plot of land in favour of the 2nd party, (herein B. Garden Krira Samity) at a nominal lease fee of Rs.3000 (Three thousand) [mistakenly written as Rs.300/- in the said agreement] only per annum as decided in the Mayor-In-Council meeting dt.30/07/2004. (e) It is stated in the said agreement that the 2nd party i.e. the lessee shall use and utilize the said property exclusively for the benefit of the public at large.” 17. We do not find any justifiable reason that in such facts and circumstances, any order should have been passed by the writ Court since it tantamounts to changing the status quo on the ground with regard to possession of the property, which was allegedly leased out by Howrah Municipal Corporation to B. Garden Krira Samity. The fact is, the same is the subject matter of a civil dispute between the parties, which is pending before the learned Court below. Any observation by the writ Court, which changes the status quo on the ground with regard to the possession of the property, therefore, can have an impact on the final adjudication of the pending civil suit. However, so far as the order dated 21st December, 2016 is concerned, we are of the view that this order shall not create any equity in favour of either of the parties and the same shall be subject to the final decision to be rendered by the competent Civil Court in Title Suit No.1175 of 2016 or in any appeal arising there from. 18. With the above observations, the appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of. 19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. (Biswanath Somadder, J.) I agree.