JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the petitioner 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 his shop 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 petitioner was tenant of the respondent No. 6 and took the shop on rent and carrying out his business under the name and style of “New Shalini Medicals” since 1999. The respondent No. 6 has purchased the 6 Katha land in question by registered sale-deed no. 6135 and 6125 from one Subhash Kumar Gupta on 28.09.1994 and 27.09.1994 respectively and the respondent No. 7 also claims of purchasing of 2 Katha land in the said land by sale-deed No. 9096 dated 27.06.2011 and as a result of said dispute the respondent No. 7 has filed the title suit being Title Suit No. 273 of 2011 praying therein inter-alia for a decree of recovery for possession of the land area 2 Katha, and structures. The said title suit was contested by the respondent No. 5 and 6 and finally it was decreed in favour of the respondent No. 7 on 08.07.2015 against which, 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, thereafter, the second appeal has been filed being Second Appeal No. 160 of 2016 by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 which is lying pending before this court. 3. The petitioner’s case is that he has entered into an agreement on 17.12.2016 for creation of tenancy and therefore he being a tenant of respondent No. 7 whereby and whereunder the shops have been sealed by the respondents, therefore is not sustainable. Mr. 3. The petitioner’s case is that he has entered into an agreement on 17.12.2016 for creation of tenancy and therefore he being a tenant of respondent No. 7 whereby and whereunder the shops have been sealed by the respondents, therefore is not sustainable. 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 vs. Yesodai Ammal, (1979) 4 SCC 214 and Indian Bank vs. Nippon Enterprises South and Others, (2016) 15 SCC 79 . 4. 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 were the defendants. 5. 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. 6. 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 petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid order before this Court invoking the jurisdiction as conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid order before this Court invoking the jurisdiction as conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The petitioner’s contention is that the tenancy has been created in his favour by the respondent No. 7, the plaintiff to the suit, therefore, sealing of the area of the shop which is in his possession 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. 8. 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 is emphasizing upon the agreement dated 17.12.2016 as contained under Annexure-3 and therefore his contention is that he 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 has failed to brought on record any instrument creating tenancy prior to the institution of the suit save and except the agreement dated 17.12.2016 but the said agreement for creating a tenancy in his favour 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 vs. Yesodai Ammal (supra) and Indian Bank vs. Nippon Enterprises South and Others (supra) 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 petitioner has 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. 9. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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 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 has got no case against him. Since not brought on record any document to suggest or justify tenancy created in his favour prior to the suit or in course of suit rather he 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. 13. In view of the entirety and facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that when any competent court of civil jurisdiction has passed a decree, the same is to be executed without any deviation subject to an order passed therein in accordance with law but the execution cannot be stalled merely on account of the fact that a post decree agreement has been executed. 14. 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.