PRASENJIT MANDAL,J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendant no.3 and is directed against the judgment and order dated May 15, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No.80 of 2013 thereby reversing the order dated February 18, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 5th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.1572 of 2011.
(2.) THE plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.1572 of 2011 against the petitioner and other defendants before the learned Trial Judge for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant nos.1, 2 & 3 from handing over possession and changing rent bill and from taking possession or making any renovation and from changing the nature and character of the suit property at premises no.163, Diamond Harbour Road, P.S. Behala, Kolkata ­ 700034 and other consequential reliefs. The defendant no.3 is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations contained in the plaint. The plaintiff/opposite party herein filed an application for temporary injunction and that application was rejected on contests. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.80 of 2013 which was allowed by the impugned judgment and order thereby reversing the order passed by the learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved, the defendant no.3 has preferred this application. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.
(3.) UPON hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that admittedly one Mathura Roy, since deceased, was a tenant in respect of the premises in suit at a rental of Rs.70/- per month payable according to English calendar month. Admittedly, Mathura Roy died on October 22, 2012 and he ran a business at the suit premises during his lifetime. It is contended by the plaintiff that during the last part of his life, Mathura Roy was not able to run the said business properly and the plaintiff/opposite party herein being the daughter of Mathura Roy, since deceased, started business at the suit premises and upon request by Mathura Roy, the tenancy was made in the name of the plaintiff, daughter of Mathura Roy. Thereafter, she has filed the suit for the reliefs already stated.;