JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the petitioners being aggrieved with the action of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad by virtue of decision taken therein on 09.04.2019 as contained in Memo No.424 by which their shops has been sealed in connection with the execution of decree passed in Title Suit No.273 of 2011 for execution of the decree passed in execution Case No.185 of 2015 has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case and as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that the petitioner No.2 was tenant of the respondent No.7 who is the plaintiff to the Title Suit No.273 of 2011 and has opened a shop for carrying out her business under the name and style of "Jai Maa Shanti General Store" since 1999. The declaratory suit has been filed being Title Suit No.273 of 2011 by one Sanjay Kumar Singh against the Arbind Kumar Singh and five others for declaring the right and title over the suit property pertaining to Mouza No.7 in Khata No.136 appertaining to Plot No.3218 measuring an area 2 Katha or to say 1440 Sq. Ft., the trial court has issued notice to the defendants but the petitioner No.1 who was the defendant No.6 there, but not appeared and thereafter the suit has set ex-parte and ultimately the judgment and decree has been passed on 08.07.2015. Against the decree, first appeal has been filed being First Appeal No.82 of 2015 by the defendant Nos.5 and 6 but the same was dismissed on 09.02.2016, against which, the second appeal has been filed being Second Appeal No.160 of 2016 by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 who were the defendant Nos.1 and 2 which is lying pending before this court. The plaintiff has filed execution case being Execution Case No.185 of 2015 and on being directed by the executing court, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad has passed order as contained under Memo No.224 dated 09.04.2019 whereby and whereunder it has been ordered for deputing the Magistrate along with the Police Personnel to ensure compliance of the decree passed in Title Suit No.273 of 2011 against which the present writ petition has been filed. 3. 3. It is the case of the petitioners and more particularly the petitioner No.2 Gita Devi that she is having the tenancy over the part of the suit property and therefore, without taking recourse of the tenancy law there cannot be order of eviction. Mr. Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of V. Dhanapal Chettiar Vrs. Yesodai Ammal , (1979) 4 SCC 214 and Indian bank Vrs. Nippon Enterprises South and Ors. , (2016) 15 SCC 79 . 4. Mr. Vinod Kumar Sahu, learned G.P.-III, appearing for the Staterespondent has vehemently opposed the submission and prayer, made on behalf of the petitioners by referring to the decree passed in Title Suit No.273 of 2011 and has submitted that the defendant No.6 namely Upendra Prasad Saw to the Suit has not appeared in the suit, therefore, the suit has been set ex-parte and decree has been passed and therefore the said decree is binding upon him. It has further submitted that the petitioner now is claiming the tenancy created in favour of the petitioner No.2 who happens to be the wife of the petitioner No.1 but the creation of tenancy is on the basis of an agreement dated 17.12.2016 as contained under Annexure-3, which admittedly after the decree passed by the trial court and therefore, no binding effect upon the decree passed by the trial court would be there, and as such the writ court sitting under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India may not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in coming in the way of execution of the decree passed by the competent court of civil jurisdiction. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their rival submissions, the factual aspects which is not in dispute in this case is that a declaratory suit has been filed by one Sanjay Kumar Singh, the respondent No.7 herein being the Title Suit No.273 of 2011 for declaration of right and title pertaining to Mouza No.7 in Khata No.136 appertaining to Plot No.3218 measuring an area 2 Katha or to say 1440 Sq. Ft; In the said title suit one Arbind Kumar Singh along with five others including the petitioner No.1 namely Upendra Prasad Saw were the defendants he being arrayed as defendant No.6. 6. Ft; In the said title suit one Arbind Kumar Singh along with five others including the petitioner No.1 namely Upendra Prasad Saw were the defendants he being arrayed as defendant No.6. 6. The trial court has passed the judgment and decree in Title Suit No.273 of 2011 on contest by passing the order with a direction upon the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to handover the suit property within a period of three months in favour of the plaintiff. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 here the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to the suit as preferred first appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.273 of 2011 but the same was dismissed on 09.02.2016 against which second appeal was filed being Second Appeal No.160 of 2016 which is pending before this court for its consideration. 7. The plaintiff has filed execution case being Execution Case No.185 of 2015 wherein the executing court has proceeded for executing the decree passed in Title Suit No.273 of 2011 in pursuance thereto the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad has passed an order upon the concerned competent authority to depute the Police Personnel on 17.04.2019 at 10.00 a.m. for handing over the possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, the decree holder. The petitioners being aggrieved with the aforesaid order before this Court invoking the jurisdiction as conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. It needs to clarify herein that the petitioner No.1 namely Upendra Prasad Saw was the defendant No.6 and as such the decree passed in the Title Suit No.273 of 2011 is binding upon him. 9. The petitioner''s contention is that the tenancy has been created in favour of the petitioner No.2 namely Gita Devi and therefore, sealing of the area of the shop which is in possession of the petitioner No.2 in the garb of execution of the decree passed in Title Suit No.273 of 2011 is improper for the reason that for eviction the recourse of tenancy act is to be taken. 10. 10. This Court is not in dispute about the legal position that if the tenancy is created and if it is the valid tenancy, the tenant can only be evicted by taking recourse of the tenancy law but the factual aspect involved in this case has been examined wherefrom it is apparent that the petitioner No.2 is emphasizing upon the agreement dated 17.12.2016 as contained under Annexure-3 and therefore her contention is that she is a valid tenant and hence the eviction can only be done by resorting to the provision of tenancy law but this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable to this Court for the reason that the admitted position herein that the petitioner No.1 was the defendant No.6 and no such document of creation of tenancy has been brought on record by the petitioner in this writ petition, showing that the tenancy has been created prior to the institution of suit rather the petitioner has given much emphasis upon the agreement dated 17.12.2016 but the said agreement for creating a tenancy in favour of the petitioner No.2 will have no overriding effect upon the decree passed in Title Suit No.273 of 2011 on 08.07.2015, therefore, the position of law as has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the judgments rendered in the case of Dhanapal Chettiar Vrs. Yesodai Ammal and Indian bank Vrs. Nippon Enterprises South and Ors. are not applicable in the facts and circumstances involved therein. Since in the aforesaid judgment the issues are that the tenant cannot be evicted save and except the recourse of tenancy law while herein the petitioners have failed to show any tenancy created by virtue of any relevant documents save and except the agreement dated 17.12.2016 which is post decree agreement. 11. It is also important to refer herein that the Articles 226 and 227 have been invoked for issuance of direction sought for in this writ petition. The provision of Article 226 is to be exercised by the High Court only in case of where there is any infringement of fundamental right or legal right accrued by the petitioner has been taken away but so far as exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is concerned, the same is the power of superintendence. 12. 12. It is not in dispute herein that the petitioner has not questioned the decree passed by the original court rather deputing the Police Personnel for executing the decree passed by the competent court of civil jurisdiction, the provision of Article 227 has been invoked and therefore, there is no need to invoke the said power by the petitioner since it is not a question exercising the power of superintendence since nothing has been argued or nothing has been pleaded to that effect, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable so far as the Article 227 of the Constitution of India is concerned. 13. So far as the provision of Article 226 is concerned, it cannot be disputed and is not in dispute that the question of legal vested right of the infringement of fundamental right is to be looked into by the writ court in exercising the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. Herein, the petitioner has sought for a direction by invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by making out a case that the petitioner No.2 is a tenant and therefore, the eviction can only be done through the tenancy law and therefore, the action of the authority is beyond jurisdiction herein as has been referred hereinabove that the petitioner No.1 has got no case and cannot have any grievance against the order dated 09.04.2019 since he was party to the suit in which the decree has been passed against him by setting the proceeding ex-parte against him and the said decree has been confirmed by the first appellate court and therefore, the petitioner No.1 cannot have any right to remain in the possession if the decree has been passed against him and operating against him. 15. 15. So far as the grievance of the petitioner No.2 is concerned, she has not brought on record any document to suggest or justify tenancy created in her favour prior to the suit or in course of suit rather she has only relied upon the documents i.e. agreement dated 17.12.2016 by which tenancy has been created but herein judgment and decree passed on 08.07.2015 while the said agreement dated 17.12.2016 therefore, any tenancy created after the decree passed in the aforesaid title suit will have got no overriding effect upon the decree and hence the principle which has been laid down that the tenant can only be evicted resorting to the tenancy law, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances as referred hereinabove. 16. In view of the entirety and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned decision dated 09.04.2019 as contained under Annexure-5, accordingly, this writ petition fails and it is dismissed.