Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) The present challenge is directed against an order whereby the defendants no. 1 and 2/opposite parties no. 1 and 2 in a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from carrying out any type of repair and/or re-building work in the suit property without written permission of the plaintiff or concerned authority. By the impugned order, an application for repair filed by the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 was allowed.
(2.) Learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner argues that the occupation of the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 was illegal, since they were at best sub-tenants under the opposite party no. 3, the tenant, without written consent of the landlord/petitioner. As such, it is argued that the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are not entitled to any protection by way of permission to repair the suit premises, since the occupation of the premises by the said opposite parties was itself without any valid basis.
(3.) It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the trial court did not specify the particulars of repair permitted. It is argued that the revisional application ought to be allowed, thereby setting aside the permission to repair granted to the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 on both such grounds.;