ASIM KUMAR MONDAL, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the opposite party which is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 9th Court, Alipore being numbered as Title Suit No. 17 of 2003. The case of the petitioner / plaintiff as made out in the suit in short is that the defendant is a tenant of the suit property. Defendant caused damage to the suit property and the suit property is reasonably required for the petitioner for her own use and occupation.
(2.) THE opposite party / the defendant during the pendency of the suit filed an application for effecting necessary repair work in the suit property. The petitioner field objection to the said petition seeking permission for repairing. The learned Trial Court by an order dated July Rd, 2006 allowed the said application for repairing with a condition that the opposite party will not change the nature and character of the suit property. The opposite party again filed an application intimating the learned Trial Court that due to the obstruction on behalf of the petitioner / plaintiff the repair work could not be completed. In view of the permission vide petition dated December 22nd,2005 the petitioner again raised objection denying all the allegations made therein. 3. The learned Trial Court in spite of holding that for the purpose of installing the long chimney relocate of pipelines is necessary, but by the oRder dated April 16th, 2009 granting the permission to install the chimney without investigating whether such chimney can be installed or not.
(3.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order preferred an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which was registered as C.O. No. 1314 of 2009. Hon'ble Court in the said revisional application appoint a special officer to find out a suitable space for installation of gas duct in the tenanted portion of the suit property. Learned special officer visited the premises and submitted his report dated June 4th, 2010 categorically suggested that gas duct can be installed through the first opening in the southern wall which is eight inches in diameter with proper support from the terrace above the suit premises. This court was pleased to dispose of the application being C.O. No. 1314 of 2009 by allowing the opposite party to install the gas duct in terms of the report of the learned special officer. In pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Court Mr. Roy empanelled engineer visited the premises and supplied a technical report for the purpose of installation of gas duct in the premises in question. As per the technical report, for the purpose of installation of the said gas duct drilling and cutting of same portion of the existing wall is necessary. It is evident from the order of the Hon'ble Court that such gas duct can only be installed from taking support from the roof not by fixing the same on the wall. The petitioner / plaintiff filed petition to the said allegation of the opposite party that the plaintiff / petitioner is not co - operating with the opposite party for installing the gas duct. Learned Trial Court by order dated November 18th, 2011 has been pleased to allow the petition of the opposite party dated march 15th, 2011.;