S. Narayan, J. - (1.) This being an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated April 24,1996 passed by Shri T.P. Chatterjee, Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Rent Appeal No. 4 of 1994, whereby the order dated May 19,1994 of the Rent Controller in R. C. Case No. 337 of 1987 was confirmed. By the order of the Rent Controller, the landlords-petitioners were directed to deliver possession in favour of the tenants-O.Ps. over an area measuring about 120 sq.ft. by way of restoration of the tenanted shop room in the ground floor of the premises No. 21-A, Biplabi Rash Behari Bose Road (formerly known as Canning Street) Calcutta-1 under Section 18-A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
(2.) The factual aspect of the matter which is apparent on the record is that the petitioners and, prior to them, their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Amar Prasad Gooptu happened to be the owner/landlords of the aforesaid premises, in a portion of which the O.Ps. and, prior to them, their predecessor-in-interest were the occupants as a tenants in respect of a Pan Shop. In the year, 1964 Amar Prasad Gooptu brought an eviction suit being Suit No. 2300 of 1964 of the City Civil Court, Calcutta for evicting the O.Ps. and their predecessor-in-interest on the ground of building and re-building of the premises. The suit was decreed, as against which the tenants O.Ps. preferred an appeal, which went up to the Division Bench of this Court. Ultimately, this Court directed the landlord-petitioners to restore the possession to the tenants within the stipulated time which was, however, subsequently, extended from-time-to-time. Ultimately, when the landlords-petitioners failed to deliver possession, the tenants-O.Ps. initiated a proceeding under Section 18-A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, which was registered as R.C. Case No. 337 of 1987 before the Rent Controller, Calcutta. In the said proceeding both the parties adduced evidence and, on conclusion of the proceeding, the order dated May 19,1994 was passed, which gave rise to the Rent Appeal No. 4 of 1994, wherein the impugned order dated April 2, 1996 was passed by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta confirming the order of the Rent Controller.
(3.) Counsel for the Landlords/Petitioners has raised two points, first being that the shop of the tenants O.Ps. was on the outer boundary wall of the old building and so they (the petitioners) were not obliged to give possession over any portion of the premises-in-question after its re-building under Section 18-A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and secondly, that because of the reduction in the floor area of the premises after the re-building on account of the changed sanction-plan of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation during the long pendency of the litigation between the parties and also on account of the introduction of the new Calcutta Municipal Act, 1980, the O.Ps. were not entitled to the floor area as claimed.;