Dipak Kumar Sen, J. - (1.) The property in dispute in this suit is premises No. 2/8B, Sarat Bose Road, Calcutta irnmoveablc property situated outside the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court. On the 8th July 1980 M/s. Hindusthan Gas & Industries Ltd., the plaintiff No. 1 and Ramjilal Batlwal, its president, the plaintiff Number 2 instituted this suit against Adhish Chandra Sinha, the defendant. The material averments in the plaint are as follows :-- (a) In terms of several deeds of leas'e executed by the defendant from time to time the said premises were demised in favour of the plaintiff No. 1. (b) The tenancy is governed by the provisions of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, 1956. (c) The defendant under cover of his letter dated 4th January 1979 sent a draft agreement dated the 14th January 1979 to the plaintiffs. The Secretary of the plaintiff No. 1 signed the said document on the 16th January 1979. (d) The signature in the said document was made by the Secretary of the plaintiff No. 1 by reason of undue influence, coercion and duress by the defendant on the plaintiffs and the document records that the plaintiff No. 1 has given notice to quit and vacate the said premises on the 31st October 1979. (e) The said document dated the 16th January 1979 is invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs and subsequent thereto the defendant has accepted the plaintiff No. 1 as a tenant in respect of the demised premises. (f) By a letter dated 13th/14th June 1980 the advocate of the defendant has served a notice on the plaintiff No. 1 calling upon the latter to quit and vacate the demised premises in terms of the said document dated 16th January 1979. The said notice is not binding on the plaintiffs. (g) it is alleged that the defendant and its servants and agents have committed various acts of nuisance and have been threatening the plaintiffs that they would cease to maintain the essential services to the said premises.
(2.) On the averments as aforesaid the plaintiffs have craved leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and claimed the following reliefs:-- "(a) A declaration that the plaintiff No. 1 is a monthly tenant in respect of the demised premises governed by the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act; (b) A declaration that the purported document dated the 16th January, 1979 and the letter dated the 13/14th June, 1980 are void and/or voidable and the same should be delivered up and cancelled; (c) The defendant, his servants and agents be restrained from giving effect to and/or acting upon the purported document dated 16th January 1979 and the said letter dated 13th/14th June, 1980; (d) permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his servants and agents from causing any disturbance to the supply of essential services to the demised premises, peaceful use and occupation thereof by the plaintiffs, their servants and agents and their right of egress to and ingress from the said premises; (e) permanent injunction restraining the defendant his servants and agents from committing nuisances and other reliefs."
(3.) In this application of the defendant it is alleged that the reliefs claimed in this suit wholly relate to and affect the title and possession of the said premises outside the original jurisdiction of this Court. The suit is a suit for land and involves determination of questions relating to right, title, interest and possession of land and as such this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. It is also alleged thai no part of the plaintiff's alleged cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court except that it is is pleaded that the agreement of lease was entered into within the jurisdiction.;