JUDGMENT : Arindam Mukherjee, J. 1.Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. This is an application said to be under Sections 22, 25, 26 and 28 of the Official Trustees Act, 1913 preferred by a group of shebaits seeking certain direction regarding the leased out premises belonging to the deity bequeathed under an Ekrarnama dated 25th May, 1820. The trust is known as Chitra Dassi Trust. 3. This application is restricted to premises No. 134/4, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kolkata – 700007 formerly known as Harrison Road, Premises No. 1A and 1B, Ram Lochan Mallick Street, Kolkata - 700007 (formerly Nos. 20, 20/1, 20/2, 20/3, 20/4, 20/5 and 21 Kashinath Mallick Lane), Premises No.17, 17/1 and 17/1/1, Kashinath Mallick Lane), Kolkata – 700007 and Premises No. 6 Ram Lochan Mallick Street, Kolkata – 700007 which are collectively referred to as the leased properties. 4. The respondent no.2 is the original lessee, respondent nos.3 (a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), 3(f) are the legal heirs of another original lessee. 5. There are other properties bequeathed to the deity under the Trust, namely, Chitra Dassi Trust created under the Ekrarnama dated 25th May, 1820 (17th Day of Falgun 1228). 6. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 are the lessees in respect of other properties involved in the Trust which are not subject matter of this application but the subject matter of the main application being AOT No.2 of 2024. The respondent nos. 6 to 9 are the other group of shebaits. 7. The petitioners say that under two lease deed respectively dated 23rd September, 1949 the area about 17 Cottahs, 14 Chittacks and 27 sq.ft. were given under lease to the defendant no.2 while another plot measuring 2 Bighas, 11 Cottahs, 13 Chittacks and 5 sq. ft. was given jointly to the defendant nos.2 and 3 under registered Deed of Lease dated 21st January, 1950. These two lease deeds involve the leased properties. The lease deed was executed by the Official Trustee of West Bengal in favour of the respondent no.2 and original respondent no.3 as aforesaid in terms of Ekrarnama to which all the shebaits consented. 8. The first lease dated 23rd September, 1949 expired on 22nd September 2024 while the other lease dated 21st January, 1950 expired on 20th January, 2025. The lease deed was executed by the Official Trustee of West Bengal in favour of the respondent no.2 and original respondent no.3 as aforesaid in terms of Ekrarnama to which all the shebaits consented. 8. The first lease dated 23rd September, 1949 expired on 22nd September 2024 while the other lease dated 21st January, 1950 expired on 20th January, 2025. The shebaits say that despite expiry of the lease deed the lessee being the respondent no.2 and legal heirs of the original respondent no.3 continued to hold on to the leasehold properties as also the legal heirs of the original respondent no.3 after his death. They are not paying any money on account of occupational charges. It is also the case of the petitioners that the position of the respondent no.2 and the legal heirs of the original respondent no.3 is that of a tenant in sufferance which is akin to a trespasser. The lease deed provides for a term for the lessee to re-enter on the expiry of the leasehold period. 9. It is the specific case of the petitioners to which the other group of shebaits lent support that the Official Trustee has not taken any steps against the lessee and/or the legal heirs of the original respondent no.3 for some unknown reasons. It is also the case of the petitioners that the income from the properties bequeathed to the deity is in sufficient to perform the regular deva seba and periodic festivals. Despite repeated requests, the Official Trustee has taken no steps for augmentation of income. That the lessees are holding on to the leasehold properties despite objection from the side of shebaits is a glaring example of the acts of the Official Trustee. 10. It is further submitted by the petitioners that to prevent multiplicity of judicial proceedings and further prejudice to the rights of the shebaits, the respondent no.2 and the legal heirs and heiresses of the original respondent no.3, their men, agents and/or servants should be restrained by appropriate order of injunction from not changing the nature and character of the leased properties or create any third party interest in respect thereof. It is also submitted by the petitioners that unless such orders are passed, the petitioners will not only suffer irreparable loss and prejudice but also application and a substantial part of the main petition will become infructuous. 11. It is also submitted by the petitioners that unless such orders are passed, the petitioners will not only suffer irreparable loss and prejudice but also application and a substantial part of the main petition will become infructuous. 11. On behalf of the Official Trustee the submissions to the extent that the Official Trustee has not taken any step is disputed, though it is admitted that the present occupational charges equivalent to the last paid lease rent is not only insufficient but also not commensurate to present market rate. 12. On behalf of the Official Trustee, it is submitted that the lease rent which was prevailing under the lease deed has been collecting up to the date of expiry and subsequent thereto a sum equivalent to the lease rent per month has been collected as occupational charges. There is, as such, no default as of now on the part of the Official Trustee. 13. On behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3, it is submitted that the lease deed provided specific authority to the lessee to make construction at the leasehold premises and sub-lease and/or sub-let the same. 14. The respondent no. 2 and the original respondent No. 3 had made constructions at the leasehold premises and have let out the same to sub lessees. The sub-lessees and/or their men, agents and servants are in occupation of the leased out properties. The respondent no.2 and the respondents no.3 series have much prior to expiry of the lease had also in writing requested the Official Trustee to renew the lease. The said respondents also cited a judgment reported in (1968) 67 ITR 218 (Official Trustee of West Bengal Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal) to submit that in respect of the self-same Trust, it has been held that the role of the shebaits is only to perform Deva Seva and nothing else. The petitioners or the respondent nos.6 to 9 as shebaits are only entitled to see that the deva seva is regularly carried on and not to participate in the management of the properties bequeathed to the deity. The Official Trustee, according to the said reports, as explained in the said judgment, is to disburse money to the shebaits or other persons ordered by the Court and should not involve itself in the performance of any religious rights, ceremonies and duties etc. 15. The Official Trustee, according to the said reports, as explained in the said judgment, is to disburse money to the shebaits or other persons ordered by the Court and should not involve itself in the performance of any religious rights, ceremonies and duties etc. 15. After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, I find that the shebaits are bound under the Ekrarnama to perform the regular deva seva and observe the periodic festivals. The shebaits for doing the same require money which is to be provided by the Official Trustee from out of the income of the estate so that the deva seva and the periodic festivals can be performed and/or observed in right earnestness. 16. Admittedly, the two lease deeds which had expired respectively on 22nd September, 2024 and January 20, 2025 were executed in the year 1949 and 1950 respectively. The lease rents fixed under the said two lease deeds may have been reasonable and fair as on the date of execution of the document but has not only become insufficient but also inconsequential with the passage of time. The lease rent under the deed dated 23rd September, 1949 is Rs. 895/- per month and that under the deed dated 21st January, 1950 is Rs.1072.67 per month. It is beyond any doubt that with such monthly income the deva seva and observance of periodic festivals cannot be observed in true earnestness which was the moto of the settler. The shebaits, therefore, are to be provided with further funds by performing the deva seva to discharge their obligation under the Ekrarnama. The Official Trustee is also statutorily bound to look for augmentation of income and provide sufficient fund to the shebaits. 17. It is also an admitted position that there is no privity of contract between the sub-lessees and the official trustee or the shebaits. It is also well settled principle of law that the sub-lessees are neither necessary nor proper parties to the eviction proceedings and are bound by the decree that may be passed against the head-lessee. Although, there is no suit for eviction or in respect of an immovable property but the nature of relief claimed in the main application as also this application involves the lease in respect of the immovable properties of the deity from the income out of which the legal necessities of the deity is to be mitigated. Although, there is no suit for eviction or in respect of an immovable property but the nature of relief claimed in the main application as also this application involves the lease in respect of the immovable properties of the deity from the income out of which the legal necessities of the deity is to be mitigated. The abuse of process by taking resources of the provisions of Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 after passing of a decree concerning an immovable property on being passed has been taken note of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has been elaborately discussed in the judgment reported in [2021] 6 SCC 418 (Rahul S. Shah-Versus-Jinendra Kumar Gandhi). In the said judgment it has been clearly stated that if the suit is relating to an immovable property, the defendants/respondents are to file affidavit and state as to whether they are in possession of the suit property and if so to what extent with the particulars of sub-lessees and/or sub-tenants inducted by them, if any. 18. In view of the aforesaid, I find that the petitioners have been able to make out a strong prima facie case. The protection sought for by the petitioners if refused shall not only lead to multiplicity of judicial proceedings but also further prejudice to the rights of the deity and the petitioners. There is also every likelihood of abuse of process as noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah (supra). 19. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent no.2 and respondent nos. 3(a) to (f) are directed to file either joint or separate affidavits stating therein whether they or any of them are in possession of the leased properties and if so, to what extent and of which portion. The affidavits shall also say as to whether they have created any third party interest and the nature of such interest, the persons and/or entities in whose favour such right has been created. It should also contain specific statement as to who have been in possession of the leased out properties. The affidavits shall also say as to whether they have created any third party interest and the nature of such interest, the persons and/or entities in whose favour such right has been created. It should also contain specific statement as to who have been in possession of the leased out properties. In the affidavit it should also be stated whether to the knowledge of the said respondents any thirty party right has been created in respect of the leased out properties which include further letting out or entering into sub-lease by the sub-lessees inducted by the defendant no.2 or the original defendant no.3 or the defendant nos. 3(a) to (f). 20. It is also necessary that no further letting out and/or third party interest is to be created in respect of the leased out properties until further orders of this Court. This order is being passed consciously in the absence of third parties and/or sub-lessees as I have discussed above that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1964 SC 1889 (Rup Chand Gupta- Versus-Raghuvanshi Private Limited & Anr.) has clearly held that sub- lessees are neither a necessary nor a proper party to a suit for eviction and are bound by the decree passed against the head-lessee even if the same causes hardship to such sub-lessees. This is because the said third parties derive interest or claim through the head lessee and the lease in the instant case has expired. 21. The official trustee shall also file an affidavit giving particulars of the income generated from the properties of trust, the statutory liabilities, arrears of municipal rates and taxes in respect of such properties. The affidavits shall also clearly say as to what amount of money the official trustee had disbursed to the shebaits over the years for carrying out the deva seva and periodical festival and what amount is lying in his account. 22. Let such affidavit-in-opposition be filed by 16th January, 2026. Affidavit in reply thereto, if any, be filed by 28th January, 2026. The respondent nos. 6 to 9 will be at liberty to use an affidavit, if so advised. 23. Let this matter appear in the monthly list of February, 2026 under the heading “Adjourned Motion”.