Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of the defendant No. 2 in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is directed against Order No. 49 dated 15th April, 2004 passed by the learned Judge 4th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 2157 of 2000 thereby disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 by directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property as on that date till the disposal of the suit.
(2.) The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid suit thereby claiming the following relief: (a) "for declaration that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are contract bound with the plaintiff holding possession of the suit room on consent and knowledge of the contract with them and that for further declaration that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have no right and cannot be allowed to take possession either in name of executions of the decree passed in Ejectment Suit No. 11 of 1986 and in executing Ejectment Execution Case No. 366 of 2000 against a third party named Gurubachan Singh Bedi or otherwise unless by the due process of law against the plaintiff. (b) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing dispossessing or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff's occupation and enjoyment of the suit room either by force in pretext of executing the decree passed in Ejectment Suit No. 11 of 1986 or in execution in Ejectment Execution Case No. 366 of 2000 of Bench IV of Small Causes Court Calcutta or otherwise howsoever; (c) Receiver; (d) Attachment; (e) Such further relief or reliefs as the plaintiff is otherwise entitled to both under law and in equity."
(3.) The case made out by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was as follows: There was an agreement between the plaintiff in one hand and the defendant nos. 1 and 2 on the other dated 20th December, 1984 by which the defendant nos. 1 and 2 agreed to let out the suit property on receiving a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in cash as earnest money at a rental of Rs. 500/- a month upon payment of the balance premium or salami of Rs. 15, 000/-. It was further alleged that the suit room, then in possession of one defaulting tenant namely, Gurubachan Singh Bedi, was in the process of eviction by filing the Ejectment Suit No. 1107 of 1986 as the said tenant had left for Punjab after locking the suit room. According to the plaintiff, he induced the local caretaker on 10th January, 1985 with whom Gurubachan Singh Bedi deposited his key for handing over the same to him and after obtaining possession in the aforesaid manner, the plaintiff approached defendant nos. 1 and 2 for grant of tenancy in his name on the aforesaid term. Ultimately, the Ejectment suit filed against Gurubachan Singh Bedi was decreed and an execution case being Ejectment Execution Case No. 366 of 2000 was initiated and the parties agreed that the new tenancy in favour of the plaintiff would be created by recording satisfaction of the decree by stating that the decree holders had already obtained possession. However, on 15th December, 2000, the defendant No. 3 approached the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by offering higher amount of premium, as a result, they refused to comply with the earlier agreement between the parties and were trying to evict the plaintiff by virtue of ejectment execution case pending against Gurubachan Singh Bedi. ;