P.K. Banerjee, J. - (1.) This relates to an application filed by the plaintiff for addition of party. The plaintiff brought the suit claiming relief which are as follows: a) Mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the said tenanted premises in the same condition together with the lift services thereto as it was prior to 4th July 1999 and fit for the purpose for which the same was let out to the plaintiff and make over the same to the plaintiff within such time as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Or In the alternative, such person or persons be appointed who in place of the defendants would restore the said tenanted premises in the same condition as it was prior to 4th July 1999 together with the lift services thereto and fit for the purpose for which the same was let out to the plaintiff at the cost of the defendants and make over the same to the plaintiff within such time as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. b) Mandatory injunction directing the defendants as alternative and adequate accommodation to the plaintiff at premises No. 4, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta till full restoration of the said tenanted premises is made for the plaintiff in terms of prayer (a) above; c) Decree for I. Rs. 44,05,000/ - on account of loss of assets; II. Rs. 16,00,000/ - on account of loss of stock and stores; III. Rs. 20,00,000/ - on account of additional statutory liability; IV. Rs. 78,00,000/ - calculated @Rs. 15,000/ - per diem till the filing of the suit and further claimed Rs. 15,000/ - per diem till the said tenanted premises is made over to the plaintiff in tenantable condition as stated in paragraph 20 above or in the alternative an enquiry into such loss and damages suffered by the plaintiff and a decree for such sums as may be found due upon such enquiry; d) Receiver; e) Injunction; f) Attachment; g) Costs; h) Further and/or other reliefs.
(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a tenant in premises situated at 1, India Exchange Place, Kolkata -700 001 under the respondent No. 1 with respect to entire third floor of the said premises measuring an approximate area of 6500 sq. ft. The said building was damaged due to fire on July 4, 1999. In spite of demand by the plaintiff, the respondent No. 1 failed to restore the said premises in its usual form to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed application for injunction and for appointment of Receiver but no substantial order was passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge. Against the order appeal was preferred and by order dated February 5, 2003 the Division Bench restrained the respondents from encumbering, transferring, alienating and/or parting with 6500 sq. ft. of area in the 3rd floor of the said premises being the subject matter of the suit.
(3.) It is the further case of the plaintiff that the respondent No. 1 transferred/assigned their interest in favour of the respondent No. 2 who was made a party. Subsequently, it transpired that the respondents have started accepting huge amount for sale and transfer of the constructed building that was proposed to be constructed at the site which would include 6500 sq. ft. in the third floor and which was tenanted to the plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the respondent No. 2 along with Riki Estates Pvt. Ltd., Global Technocrats were the joint Developers with respect to the building in question. By filing the instant application, the plaintiff prayed for addition of party of Riki Estates Pvt. Ltd. as a defendant.;