Sahidullah Munshi, J. - (1.) This is an application for injunction filed by the plaintiff. Leave was granted to move for an ex parte interim injunction on ground of urgency and threat of change of nature and character of the suit property by or at the instance of Mr. Kar's clients, the defendant nos. 10, 11 and 12, the purchaser of a property from Mr. Saha's client, the defendant nos. 5 and 6. The subject matter of the suit is a Registered Deed of Conveyance executed by Mr. Saha's client in favour of Mr. Kar's client on 14th May, 2011, thereby causing transfer of a land on which the defendant no.1, company has its Dry-cleaning business for a long period of time in its capacity as a lessee under Mr. Saha's clients for a period of over 50 years since 1947. On 21st January 2019 when the application was moved it was pointed out before this Court that by virtue of the sale of the property in question under the registered deed dated 14th May, 2011, the petitioners would be seriously affected if the purchaser of the property under the said deed creates any third party interest or changes the nature and character of the suit property. It was further submitted before this Court that while a second appeal was pending before this Court arising out of the suit filed by the owner/landlord, of defendant no. 1 of which the petitioners are minority shareholders, the second Appellate Court although protected the interest of the company defendant no. 1, who was a tenant under the defendant nos. 5 and 6, protected by an order of status quo which was passed in the second appeal (S.A. 265 of 1981 being Annexure E at page 86 of the application) on 11th September, 1992. It was further submitted that the interim order which was passed on 11th September, 1992 is still in force. It is profitable to set out the said order; "Let the application for injunction come up for hearing two weeks after the long vacation. The appellants-petitioners will serve copy of the application on the learned Advocate for the respondents-opposite parties. In the meantime both parties will maintain status quo as on today".
(2.) On a misconceived impression that the order of status quo passed by the Second Appellate Court was subsisting and since the present suit relates to the self-same property which was also subjudice in the second appeal, this Court passed an ex parte order to protect the interest of the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the defendant nos. 5, 6 and defendant nos. 10, 11 and 12 appeared through their respective Counsels and prayed for vacating the said ad interim order of injunction. However, since the hearing could not be completed this Court extended the said order till 28th February, 2019.
(3.) Mr. Saha, appearing for respondent nos. 5 and 6 submits that the plaintiffs are none but the share-holders of the said company, the defendant no.1 and has got no greater interest than the tenancy, which was created in favour of the company by his clients. The property has now been transferred by Mr. Saha's client in favour of respondent nos. 10, 11 and 12. It is not disputed that the property belonged to Mr. Saha's client and who transferred the property in 2011 by a registered Deed of Conveyance in favour of the defendant nos. 10, 11 and 12, i.e., Mr. Kar's clients. Mr. Saha submits that the plaintiff cannot claim more title than their right of tenancy. Mr. Saha's client filed a suit for ejectment of the tenant and that suit failed holding that the property in suit has already vested to the State of West Bengal, since 1st Baisakh, 1362 B.S. by operation of Estate Acquisition Act. There is no dispute from either side that the property is vested to the State and the order passed in the said suit has been carried to the first appeal by the defendants in that suit and the first appeal was allowed in part and judgment and decree passed in the suit was modified by the First Appellate Court. A second appeal being S.A. No. 265 of 1981 is pending. The First Appellate Court while allowing the appeal in part held that the defendant in that suit became a non-agricultural under tenant within the meaning of Section 3(1)(b) of the West Bengal Non-agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 and the plaintiffs were non-agricultural tenants within the meaning of Section3(1)(a) of the said Act. Mr. Kar appearing for the defendant nos. 10, 11, 12 submits that his client has purchased the property by Registered Deed of Conveyance way back in 2011 and he has not taken any steps till now to act on the basis of the said deed. Mr. Saha and Mr. Kar both submit that the facts and circumstances which have been disclosed in the application for injunction do not warrant for issuing an ad interim order of injunction. Mr. Saha submits that the qualification for getting an ad interim injunction is not available within the four corners of the injunction application. Mr. Saha cited before this Court the following decisions:- (1) (Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., 1993 3 SCC 161) (2) (Dr. Arvind Gupta v. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Ors., 1994 4 SCC 225).;