- (1.) ADMITTEDLY Prime Clocks Pvt. Ltd. (Admitted Tenant) was inducted as a tenant by the defendant (Landlord) in the suit shop room. The agreement of tenancy provides that the said tenant will have the right to sublet the suit room to any other person with prior notice in writing to the defendant for which the defendant will consent and shall have no objection. The said agreement also provides that the tenant will not be entitled to sublet or sublease the said tenancy which will go against any of the above provisions contained in the said agreement. The tenancy agreement also provides that electricity will be supplied to the tenant at the rate charged by the calcutta Electric Supply Corporation plus 5 (Five) paise per unit according to reading of the meter to be supplied by the tenant at its cost and approved by the defendant. The other terms of the said agreement are not mentioned here as this Court is not presently concerned with those terms of the tenancy agreement.
(2.) SINCE certain disputes and differences subsequently cropped up between the said tenant and its landlord, the said tenant apprehended that the supply of electricity to the tenant may be disconnected by the defendant/ opposite party and under such circumstances, for protecting the tenant's right of user and enjoyment of the said tenancy, the said tenant filed a suit being Title Suit No. 939 of 2002 before the learned Trial Judge inter alia praying for a decree for permanent injunction for restraining the opposite party and his men and agents from disconnecting the supply of electricity to the schedule shop of the plaintiff (Admitted Tenant) from the HTC line of the defendant (Landlord) from its HT meter installed in a part of 'b' schedule property mentioned in the plaint.
(3.) ON an application for temporary injunction filed/by the plaintiff in the said suit, an ad interim order of injunction was passed by the learned trial Judge whereby the defendant (Landlord) and/or his men and agents were restrained from disconnecting the supply of electricity to the schedule shop of the plaintiff (Admitted Tenant) from the HT line supplied by the defendant from its meter installed in a part of 'b' schedule property mentioned in the plaint till 19th July, 2002. The defendant (Landlord) was intimated about the said ad interim order of injunction by the plaintiff (Admitted Tenant) in compliance of the provision contained in Order 39. Rule 3 (a) and 3 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. On receipt of the said notice the defendant appeared in the said suit through its learned Advocate but ultimately did not come forward either to contest the said suit or to contest the plaintiffs application for temporary injunction. As a result, the plaintiffs application for temporary injunction was disposed of by the learned trial Judge on 14th January, 2005 vide Order No. 35 whereby the ad interim order of injunction which was passed earlier, was made absolute.;