Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the order dated July 16, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Paschim Medinipur in Other Suit No.102 of 2007 thereby rejecting an application for restoration of possession and another application for injunction at the instance of the plaintiff.
(2.) THE plaintiff instituted the said title suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants/opposite parties claiming himself to be a tenant under the defendant/opposite party no.1. One shop room is the premises in suit and the plaintiff contended that he is a monthly tenant at the rate of Rs.610/- per month payable to Bengali calendar month. He has been running a readymade garments shop in that premises in suit. He has also been paying the monthly rents regularly to the defendant no.1. When the plaintiff offered rent for the month of Bhadra, 1414 B.S. to the defendant no.1/opposite party, he refused to receive the same and he insisted the plaintiff/petitioner to quit and vacate the suit premises immediately. Ultimately, the defendants forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit premises and their articles of business were thrown away on the road. For that reason, the plaintiff has filed the said suit. The defendants are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. They have categorically stated that the plaintiff had vacated the suit premises in favour of the defendant no.1 and no dispossession had been done forcibly. The allegation of throwing away the garments and clothes from the said shop room is false. So, the suit should be dismissed. The plaintiff filed an application for restoration of possession and another application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from causing any sort of disturbance of the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit premises till disposal of the suit.
(3.) BOTH the petitions have been disposed of by the impugned order directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit premises, as on day, of passing the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the point that arises for decision is whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned order. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on going through the materials on record, I find that there is no dispute that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the premises in suit at a rental of Rs.610/- per month payable according to Bengali calendar month under the defendant no.1. Initially, the plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration of tenancy right and for injunction restraining the defendants from evicting him from the premises in suit. An interim order of injunction has been granted. Subsequently, the plaintiff has contended that he has been forcibly evicted from the premises in suit. From the materials on record, I find that the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. for violation of the order of injunction. This proceeding is the appropriate proceeding to decide whether the order of injunction has been violated or not or whether the defendant has taken forcible possession of the suit premises. The defence case is that the defendant did not take the possession of the suit premises forcibly but the possession of the suit premises was delivered in favour of the defendants on November 15, 2007. It is also the contention of the defendants that the defendant no.1 was the owner of the premises in suit and at the time of agreement with the plaintiff, it was decided that the plaintiff was to vacate the premises in suit when it would be required for the purpose of settlement of the defendant no.2. In fact, the defendant no.1 gifted the said property to the defendant no.2 by Deed of Gift and thus, the defendant no.2 is the present owner of the premises in suit and under such situation, the plaintiff delivered possession of the suit premises in favour of the defendant no.1 and now, the defendant no.2 has kept the materials of his business in the suit premises. These are the matters to be decided only by taking evidence and on the basis of affidavits filed by the parties, no decision could be arrived at. I have stated earlier that the proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. is the appropriate measure to come to a decision on that matter. Since, there is a rival contention over the fact whether the plaintiff has delivered vacant possession in favour of the defendant no.1 or that the defendants had taken forcible possession of the suit premises in absence of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Judge has held that it would be better that an order of status quo would meet the ends of justice and he passed the order accordingly till disposal of the suit.;