Item No. 28 12.11.2025 Court. No. 6 GB C.O. 3673 of 2025 Sri Suman Saha & Ors. Vs. Shuvendu Bikash Karmakar Mr. Avishek Prasad, Mr. Sourodeep Singha … for the Petitioners. Mr. Biswaranjan Bhakat, Mr. Somnath Chattopadhyay … for the Opposite Party. 1. The petitioners have challenged an order dated September 8, 2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Malda in O.C. No.06 of 2020. By the order impugned, the learned court allowed certain repairs, which according to the court, were necessary to make the premises habitable. 2. The opposite party as plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration of tenancy. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff/opposite party filed an application for repair. In course of hearing of the application for repair it was found necessary to appoint an advocate commissioner, to ascertain the extent of damage to the property, allegedly, caused by the landlord. 3. According to the plaintiff, the landlord had dug holes on the roof and committed other kinds of nuisance to ensure that running the shop would become impossible. 4. The petitioners, defendants in the suit objected to such prayer for repair and appointment of a commissioner. However, the commission was allowed 2 and the commissioner’s report was accepted. The acceptance of the report was challenged before the High Court, but there was no interference. The High Court directed that the application for repair should be disposed of. The parties examined the commissioner on the basis of the report filed, and ultimately, the court partially allowed the application for repair, inter alia, directing that the holes, cracks and slits on the ceiling could be repaired by the opposite party/plaintiff so that there was no water seepage through the ceiling. The repair of the water outlet pipe of the terrace was also allowed. The electric connection of the shop room and the collapsible gate which were found to be damaged, were further allowed to be repaired. 5. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said order on the ground that, the municipality had already issued a direction to pull down the structure as the same was dilapidated and dangerous. Accordingly, the municipality also directed the landlord to remove the tenants. Such aspect was not gone into by the learned trial judge. It is submitted that, if any repair is carried out in the said building, the same will further damage the condition of the building. There is already a warning from the municipality. The building will collapse. 6. The fact that there is an order of injunction restraining the petitioners from disturbing the 3 possession of the opposite party, is not in dispute. If the opposite party can continue to enjoy the property, the same has to be habitable. Thus, the order allowing repair of holes, cracks and slits on the ceiling, electric connection, water outlet pipe of the terrace and the gate, is reasonable. However, the order is modified to the extent that during the course of the repair, the opposite party will ensure that an engineer from the panel of the municipality supervises such repair, solely to ensure that the structural stability of the building is not compromised in any way. The engineer will ensure that the repair is restricted to the holes, cracks and slits on the ceiling, water outlet pipe of the terrace, electrical connection in the shop room and the collapsible gate and nothing beyond. The cost of the engineer shall be borne by the opposite party. 7. The opposite party is directed to approach the learned trial judge in this regard and the trial judge will pass necessary orders by deputing an empanelled engineer of the concerned municipality. Such order will be passed by the learned trial judge, within two weeks from receipt of the application of the opposite party. 8. Accordingly the revisional application is disposed of. 9. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.)