- (1.) This is an appeal against order dated February 14, 2013 passed by the learned Judge, Seventh Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 850 of 2007. By the order impugned, the learned judge declined to pass any ad interim order of injunction against the defendants in connection with an application for temporary injunction, which is now pending before the learned judge.
(2.) The plaintiff alleges in this suit that: a) it is a monthly tenant under the defendant no. 1, that is, Mackinnon Mackenzie and Company Limited, in respect of the suit property at a consolidated monthly rent of Rs. 5370.50/- (Rupees five thousand three hundred seventy and fifty paise) only. The plaintiff is, also, paying the monthly rent and taxes, multi-storied building taxes and service charges in respect of a portion on the ground floor and a room on the roof of the said premises. b) On or about November 7, 1998 a major fire broke out in the said premises due to negligence of the defendants. Extensive damages were caused to the said premises. The suit house comprised of 5 (five) floors. The fire broke out on third and fourth floors of the house. However, the fire did not affect the ground floor or the roof of the said house. Because of the such fire other portions of the said premises were severely affected. Various documents, records, books of accounts, furniture etc., belonging to the plaintiff, were damaged as a result of seepage and flooding of water. c) On November 10, 1998 the Kolkata Municipal Corporation issued a notice intimating that all insecure portions of the building were required to be demolished and the remaining portions were required to be secured. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation, thereafter, appointed an expert committee. The said committee found that the ground floor of the said building has remained unaffected, which might not be vacated for the present, but use of the other floors of the building should not be allowed in any case. However, it was suggested that at the time of taking of remedial or protective measures in the upper floors, the ground floor would have to be vacated for safety of the users. d) On January 12, 1999 Kolkata Municipal Corporation issued a notice intimating that none should physically occupy any floor of the damaged building until reconstruction of the building. e) Immediately after the fire, the plaintiff informed to the Officer-in-Charge, Hare Street Police Station, Kolkata, by letters dated November 9, 1998 and November 10, 1998 that the portion occupied by the plaintiff was not affected by the fire and the plaintiff wanted to remove the records to avoid further damage due to water seepage by the water used by the fire brigade. f) On November 11, 1998 the plaintiff informed the Director of the General Post Office, Kolkata, requesting to hand over all the postal articles addressed to the plaintiff in the said premises to the authorised representative of the plaintiff. g) On November 14, 1998 the plaintiff sought for permission from the police authorities for removal of its damaged files, papers etc. for their restoration and for permission to clean the tenanted premises. h) The Executive Engineer (Building) concerned of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, intimated the Officer-in-Charge, Hare Street Police Station, on November 23, 1998, that the plaintiff might be allowed to remove their belongings from the said premises. i) The plaintiff was repeatedly asking for permission to use the said premises inasmuch as the premises, which were under occupation of the plaintiff, were not damaged by the fire. j) However, on January 12, 1999 the Executive Engineer concerned intimated the plaintiff that no floor of the said building, including the ground floor, would be allowed to be occupied physically until the re-construction of the building. k) On October 17, 2003 the plaintiff requested the defendants to permit the employee of the plaintiff to remove two air-conditioned machines and one generator from the office of the plaintiff located on the ground floor. l) The plaintiff is a bona fide tenant and is, therefore, entitled to occupy the tenanted premises peacefully and the plaintiff cannot be evicted except in due process of law. m) The owner, the developer and the Kolkata Municipal Corporation are in collusion to evict the petitioner from the suit premises without securing the requirements of law. The plaintiff, however, came to learn that one real estate developer, that is, Diamond Heritage Enterprise, has undertaken a project of developing the suit building by converting it into a commercial complex. n) The plaintiff claims to be a bona fide monthly tenant and, therefore, claims that it is entitled to peacefully use, enjoyment of the said tenanted premises. As the defendants are not handing over the tenanted premises to the plaintiff, the plaintiff institutes the instant suit, inter alia, for declaration of tenancy right, recovery of possession and permanent injunction The plaintiff, after filing of the suit, moved an application for injunction and the learned trial judge, by order dated April 9, 2007, passed an ad interim order of maintenance of status quo.
(3.) Initially, the Diamond Heritage Enterprise was not a party. Subsequently, on the prayer of the plaintiff, the said Diamond Heritage Enterprise was added as a partydefendant in the suit. After such addition, the plaintiff moved yet another application for injunction restraining the defendants including the added defendants from transferring, alienating or creating third party interest in respect of the tenanted premises during the pendency of the suit.;