Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS Review Application is a direction against the order dated July 26, 2010 passed by this Hon?ble Bench in C.O. No. 2348 of 2009 thereby disposing of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners.
(2.) THE short fact is that the plaintiff ? O.P.s herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 2838 of 2008 against the O.P.s for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff is a monthly tenant and its proprietress Smt. Sushila Dalmia and other members of her family are entitled to use and enjoy the tenanted premises as described in the schedule of the plaint. At the time of filing of the suit the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction. In that suit an order of status quo was granted. Thereafter, upon contested hearing the application was disposed of directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property. During pendency of the suit the petitioner prayed for a direction upon the concerned O/C to see that the order of status quo is maintained and the learned Trial Judge directed the O/C Shampukur P.S. to see that there is no interference against the enjoyment of the amenities.
(3.) BEING aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a Revisional Application which was disposed of by setting aside the impugned order. However, liberty was given to the O.P. No.1 to apply the self-same relief afterwards if the situation so demands. BEING aggrieved this application was preferred. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court finds that, at the time of disposal of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Bench took the consideration of the facts that there is a Tenants? Association of the property in suit and this Tenants? Association filed a suit being C.S. No. 123 of 2009 and in that suit the amenities to be enjoyed by the tenants are being considered and for that reason one Special Officer has been appointed and he is looking after the matter. He is to submit his report accordingly. It is immaterial whether the husband of the plaintiff is a member of that Tenants? Association or not. Fact remains that the Tenants? Association filed a suit being C.S. 123 of 2009 and in that suit the tenant?s amenities could well be considered. For that reason, in order to avoid any hindrance, this order no. 21 dated 30.06.09 in Title Suit No. 2838 of 2007 has been vacated so that there may not be any obstruction resistance in looking after the matter properly. Moreover, liberty was given to the plaintiff to apply for the self-same relief afterwards if the situation demands.;