Form No. J(2) In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Justice Sandip Kumar De FMA No. 1327 of 2025 + CAN 1 of 2025 Zubair Ahmed Khan and others Vs. Md. Hammad Ansari For the appellants : Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee, Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, Mr. Shital Sunwas, Advs. For the respondent : Mr. Javed K. Sanwarwala, Mrs. Farah Anjum, Mr. Shariq A. Sanwarwala, Ms. Sadaf Aafrin, Advs. Heard on : 19.08.2026. Judgment on : 19.08.2026. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:- 1. In view of the short conspectus of the appeal, the same is taken up for hearing along with the connected application. 2. By the impugned order, in a suit for declaration of tenancy rights and consequential reliefs filed by the plaintiff/respondent, the learned Trial Judge directed status quo to be maintained by the parties in respect of Schedule-B property till disposal of the suit. 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants/appellants argues that the appellants have purchased the property and are the exclusive owners thereof. 4. It is submitted that altogether there are twenty-seven tenants in the said building, out of whom twenty-six have agreed to shift from the premises in order to enable the development work and the construction of a new building on the property. Alternative accommodation has also been provided to them. However, due to the resistance of only the plaintiff/respondent, who is also a tenant in the suit building, such development work cannot be undertaken despite the appellant being armed with a valid sanction plan. 5. Secondly, it is argued that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) has already issued a notice under Section 411 of the KMC Act asking for appropriate steps to be taken, as a prelude to demolishing the dangerous and dilapidated portions of the building, including the appellant’s occupied portion. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is agreeable to provide an alternative accommodation to the respondent till the development work is completed and thereafter to rehabilitate the plaintiff/respondent appropriately. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent submits that the respondent has preferred a challenge against the sanction plan obtained by the appellants before the writ court, which was allegedly obtained by forgery. 3 8. It is submitted that the signature of the plaintiff/respondent was manufactured and forged in a document submitted by the appellants before the KMC for obtaining the sanction. As such, the said sanction is vitiated. 9. It is further submitted that the plaintiff/respondent has already lodged a complaint against the appellants in that regard. Even otherwise, the writ petition challenging the sanction plan was ultimately disposed of by directing the KMC to give a hearing to both parties. Such hearing has already been concluded but no order has yet been passed thereon. 10. Thus, it is argued that the learned Trial Judge was justified in observing that evidence is required to be led for coming to a conclusive finding as to the legality of the possession of the respondent as well as the right of the appellants with regard to the property. 11. Upon a careful perusal of the impugned order, we find that, otherwise, the respondent has prima facie proved that he is a tenant in respect of the subject property and, as such, is entitled to have an injunction protecting his possession, unless otherwise evicted by due process of law. 12. However, two vital aspects have not been adverted to while passing the impugned order. 13. First, in view of there being a pending dispute before the KMC in the light of a demolition notice issued by the KMC and since the KMC has already concluded hearing the parties on such aspect of the matter, the impugned order cannot be used as a shield by the plaintiff/respondent to seek protection against lawful action which might be taken by the 4 KMC in the event it is ultimately found out that the portion of the suit property occupied by the plaintiff/respondent falls within the dilapidated / dangerous portion of the building. 14. Secondly, no law prevents the defendants/appellants from taking due legal action for evicting the plaintiff/respondent, if the appellants are otherwise so entitled in law. 15. Accordingly, FMA No. 1327 of 2025 is disposed of on contest by modifying the impugned order, bearing Order no. 15 dated April 1, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, Sixth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 2460 of 2023, to the extent that the status quo order granted by the learned Trial Judge shall operate but be subject to the rider that nothing in the said order shall prevent the KMC from taking any action, if otherwise permissible in law, in respect of the suit property, in terms of the provisions of KMC Act and/or otherwise in accordance with law. 16. Secondly, the appellants/defendants shall be at liberty to obtain eviction of the plaintiff/respondent, if so otherwise entitled in law, in due process of law and nothing in the impugned order of status quo shall prevent the appellants from taking recourse to such due process of law for the eviction of the plaintiff/respondent. 17. With the above observations, we express hope and trust that the learned Trial Judge shall decide the suit, which is pending since the year 2023, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from the date of communication of this order to the said Court. 18. Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2025 stands disposed of as well. 5 19. There will be no order as to costs. 20. Urgent certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) I agree. (Sandip Kumar De, J.)