A.K. Dutta, J. -
(1.)This revisional application by the Petitioner -Defendant No. 1 under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated September 6, 1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court at Alipore, District 24 -Parganas (South), in Misc. Appeal No. 324 of 1995 before him, for the reasons stated and on the grounds made out therein. By the said order the learned Judge had dismissed the relevant appeal filed by her and had affirmed the order dated July 14, 1995 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Fourth Court at Alipore, in Title Suit No. 86 of 1990 before him.
The facts, as are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the instant revisional application, may shortly be set out as follows:
(2.)The Defendant -opposite party No. 2 herein, M/s. Metal Box India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Metal Box') was initially a tenant under the Defendant No. 1/Petitioner Sati Rani Sen (hereinafter referred to as 'Sati Rani') in respect of the suit premises. The opposite party No. 1 /Plaintiff, M/s. Indian Standard Casting Company (hereinafter referred to as 'ISCC'), had allegedly taken physical possession of the suit premises from the previous tenant, Metal Box, on April 7, 1990. On April 24, 1990 the electric meters in respect thereof had been transferred in the name of the former (ISCC). Sati Rani had thereafter tried to interfere with the possession of ISCC in respect thereof on July 2, 1990. She had allegedly demanded through her son and son -in -law on July 7, 1990 a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 only towards premium from ISCC at the office of the Metal Box, and had threatened to oust ISCC from the suit premises if the said premium is not paid. ISCC had thereupon filed the relevant suit, being T.S. No. 86 of 1990, before the concerned Court on July 13, 1990 against Sati Rani and Metal Box (hereinafter referred to as 'first suit') praying for a declaration that it (ISCC) was the tenant in respect of the suit premises under Sati Rani, and for permanent injunction restraining her from interfering with its peaceful possession in respect thereof. On ISCC's application for temporary injunction, the learned Assistant District Judge concerned had, by order dated July 14, 1990 issued interim injunction restraining Sati Rani, her men and agents from interfering with ISCC's peaceful possession of the suit premises. The Court had also directed the Officer -in -Charge of the concerned Police Station to ensure that the injunction order so issued is obeyed by them. Sati Rani had entered appearance in the said suit on July 18, 1990 and had prayed for time for filing written objection against ISCC's application for temporary injunction. On the following day, she had preferred appeal against the aforesaid order of injunction before the District Judge at Alipore, being Misc. Appeal No. 311 of 1990, along with a prayer for stay of operation of the said order, but the prayer for stay was not granted. The learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, had dismissed the said Appeal on May 3, 1991, and the interim order of injunction passed by the trial Court was confirmed by him. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said appeal, she had moved a revisional application before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated May 15, 1991 had rejected the said revisional application, and had confirmed the aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court at Alipore. The aforesaid interim order of injunction passed by the trial Court on July 14, 1990 accordingly stood confirmed upto this Court.
(3.)In the meantime, Sati Rani had filed a suit on September 17, 1990 before the 2nd Court of Munsif at Alipore, being Title Suit No. 435 of 1990, against Metal Box and ISCC (hereinafter referred to as 'second suit') praying, inter alia, for a declaration that Metal Box is the tenant in occupation of the self -same suit premises and that ISCC is not the tenant in respect thereof. She had also filed an application for temporary injunction in the said suit praying for restraining ISCC not to use the suit premises or occupy the same or enter therein, which was rejected by the Court on September 19, 1990. It is contended on behalf of ISCC that the learned advocate for Metal Box, Mr. Subhash Chandra Das, had informed Sati Rani and her learned advocate that ISCC had been granted tenancy by her (Sati Rani) with effect from March 1, 1990, and that it (Metal Box) was no longer a tenant in respect of the suit premises. Even so, Sati Rani had taken over possession of the suit premises by evicting the security guard of ISCC on May 23, 1995 during the pendency of the said two suits.