SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) The present challenge is at the behest of the first defendant in a suit, inter alia, for declaration of tenancy rights and consequential reliefs. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 takes a preliminary objection as to the rest of the defendants having not been impleaded in the present revisional application. Liberty is given to learned counsel on record for the petitioner to amend the cause title and incorporate the names of the left-out defendants in the category of proforma opposite parties.
(2.) In view of the nature of the dispute involved, service on such proforma opposite parties, proposed to be added, is dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Trial Court acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order, directing the implementation of the order dated February 16, 2018, whereby the plaintiff/tenant was given the liberty to repair the roof of the tenanted premises in order to stop the percolating rain water as an interim measure. It is argued that the Trial Court was without jurisdiction in granting such liberty without notice to all the defendants, in view of the specific mandate, contemplating such notice, incorporated in Regulation 28(3) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Rent Control Regulation, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1964 Regulation").
(3.) Moreover, it is argued that by the same order dated February 16, 2018, the Trial Court itself recorded that the court would decide whether the proposed repair work would be allowed or not after receiving local inspection report and service of summons with amended copy of the plaint upon the defendants.;