Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) By a common order dated 15th June, 2017, two writ petitions being W.P. 2308 (W) of 2015 and W.P. 27491 (W) of 2015 both filed by the writ petitioners/appellants were disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this court. In the impugned order, the learned trial Judge held that the writ court cannot accept the case of the petitioner company and direct the respondent no. 9 to vacate the suit premises by determining the right, title, interest and possession of the parties to the proceeding by usurping the jurisdiction of the civil court and accordingly, the writ petition was held to be devoid of any merit.
(2.) Thus, the first writ petition being W.P. 2308 (W) of 2015 was dismissed. The other writ petition being W.P. 27491 (W) of 2015 which was filed by the writ petitioner/appellant against the respondent herein seeking identical reliefs also was dismissed in view of the dismissal of the first writ petition. The legality and the propriety of the said order passed by the writ court, dismissing both the aforesaid writ petitions are challenged by the writ petitioners/appellants before this court in this mandamus appeal.
(3.) Here is the case where we find that the writ petitioner/appellant and the respondent no. 9 are making rival claims of title over the property in question. The private respondent no. 9 is claiming title over the property in question by way of purchase of the same from the admitted owner thereof for valuable consideration in 2007. The writ petitioner/appellant, which was initially inducted by the admitted owner as a tenant in the property in question, had set up its title in the property as thika tenant. It had also started depositing thika rent with the controller. The right of the writ petitioner/appellant as that of a thika tenant in the property in question has not yet been conclusively determined by the thika controller. Fact remains that the dealership agreement which was granted in favour of the erstwhile dealer Mr. Sengupta (since deceased) under the writ petitioner/appellant has ceased to operate and a new dealer has been appointed for running the petrol pump over the property in question by the writ petitioner /appellant. The newly appointed dealer could not receive possession of the petrol pump due to alleged obstruction created by some miscreants.;