SOUMEN SEN,J. - (1.) In spite of notice the defendant nos.1 and 4 are not represented. The affidavit of service is kept with the records.
(2.) The plaintiff is the owner of the property. It is alleged that the respondent nos.1 and 2 along with six other ladies were joint lessees having unity of possession, title, time and interest in respect of suit premises. It is alleged that in May, 2017 the plaintiffs came to know that the respondents have defaulted in payment of rent in respect of demise premises since January, 1990. The respondent alleged to have made unauthorized construction on the roof without prior consent of the petitioner and have not paid corporation rates and taxes in terms of the lease. It is further alleged that the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 have allowed one Sampark Advertising and Media Pvt. Ltd., the respondent no.4, to occupy the roof without the consent and/or authority of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in view of the aforesaid breaches issued a notice of forfeiture dated 10th August, 2017. It appears that the defendant no.2 replied to the said letter contending that consolidated rent in respect of schedule leasehold property was being paid to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month which includes rates and taxes and surcharges. Such rate was duly paid by the defendant to the petitioner in March, 2011. The said defendant further claimed to have paid rent for the months of April, 2011 to September, 2011 by cheque which was duly encashed, but receipt had been granted in response thereto. The current rent in respect of leasehold property is claimed to have been deposited in the office of the rent controller, Kolkata as the petitioner alleged to have refused to accept the said rents. These issues are required to be decided on affidavits.
(3.) Since the lease has been determined and it is required to be seen as to whether Clause 12 of the lease agreement has been complied with by the defendant, while sub-letting whole or any portion of the demises premises which can only be revealed in affidavit. A prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff 3 for an order of injunction restraining the respondents from creating any third party interest in the suit property. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of passing such an order as refusal to pass any such order would likely to create more hardship to the plaintiff.;