KAILASH NATH AND ASSOCIATES Vs. VIJAY KUMAR SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in Title Suit No. 2485 of 1994 before the fifth Bench of the City Civil Court being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order No 69 dated 18.5.98 have preferred this appeal. By the said order, the learned Judge of the fifth Bench allowed the plaintiff's application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code on contest and directed both the parties to maintain status quo as on the date of the order with regard to the possession of the suit premises till the disposal of the suit.

(2.) The admitted facts are-(i) the plaintiff was a tenant in respect of a garage and a servant's quarter at premises No. 14B, Camac Street covering an area of 250 sq. ft. under Rajmata Ratankumari Devi who was the owner of the entire premises. (ii) By an agreement dated 5.10.81 the said Rajmata gave development right in respect of the said premises No. 14B, Camac Street to the defendant No. 1 with right to negotiate with the tenants in order to develop the said property. However Rajmata Ratankumari Devi filed Title Suit No. 21 1984 praying for eviction of the plaintiff and ultimately the plaintiff and the present defendants settled the matter to the effect that the defendants should provide to the plaintiff 250 sq. ft. of super built-up area in lieu of handing over the possession of the garage and the servant's quarter to the defedants and that the plaintiff would get further 300 sq. ft. super built-up area at the rate of Rs. 700/- per sq. ft. totalling an area of 550 sq. ft. of super built-up area to be provided in the fourth floor of the building to be constructed. (iii) A formal agreement was also executed between the plaintiff and the defendants on 5.12.89 and the Ejectment Suit No. 21 of 1984 was settled accordingly in terms of a solenama on 26.4.90. In terms of the agreement, the plaintiff duly paid a sum of Rs. 1,99,500/- as against the balance consideration money of Rs. 2,10,000 for the 300 sq. ft. of land by instalments upto 9.1.93 and sent two other cheques for Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 4000/- on 23.8.93 towards the charges for electricity connection and generator, respectively. (iv) The defendants have constructed the entire fourth floor covering a total area of 6000 sq. ft.

(3.) The dispute between the parties arose thereafter. In the plaint as well as in the application for temporary injunction, it is stated that the plaintiff is in possession and occupation of the fourth floor north-west corner of the said newly constructed structure, but it is not indicated actually how, on which date and by whom he was put into possession in respect of that portion in the fourth floor. The plaintiff has also claimed that on 10th August, 1994 the defendants by collecting hired men and goondas threatened the plaintiff from dispossession in respect of the said portion in the fourth floor for which the plaintiff made a complaint at Park Street Police Station by G.D. Entry No. 1156 dated 10.8.94. The plaintiff also obtained order under section 144 Cr.PC from the Executive Magistrate on 12.8.94 in which the Officer-in-Charge of the Park Street Police Station was directed to inquire and report with a further direction to see that the plaintiff was not forcibly ousted from the said portion. It was alleged that the defendants thereafter again tried to dispossess the plaintiff for which the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit with the following prayers :-