PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the order dated February 28, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Barasat in Misc. Appeal No.48 of 2011 thereby disposing of the appeal directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards the nature and character of the suit property till the disposal of the application for temporary injunction by the learned Trial Judge.
(2.) THE plaintiff/appellant/opposite party herein instituted the title suit being Title Suit No.81 of 2011 for ejectment of a tenant, mesne profits, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. In that suit, he filed an application for temporary injunction and prayed for an ad interim injunction. The learned Trial Judge refused to grant an ad interim injunction, but, issued a show cause notice upon the defendant/petitioner herein. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.48 of 2011 which was disposed of in the manner indicated above by the impugned judgment and order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the defendant/respondent/petitioner herein. 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 so far as the claim of the plaintiff/appellant/opposite party herein in respect of the suit property is concerned, the suit is nothing but an ejectment suit and other consequential reliefs against a tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent, contravening of the provisions of Section 108(m)(o)(p) of the Transfer of Property Act and for causing damage to the suit property, annoyance and nuisance to the plaintiff, inmates and neighbours of the plaintiff.;