SANDHYA DAS KHAN Vs. MANIK BANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 29th April, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barrackpore, in Misc. Appeal No. 29 of 2009 by which the petitioner's prayer for ad-interim injunction during the pendency of the said appeal, was rejected by the learned Appeal Court. The plaintiff/appellant, who is the petitioner herein was aggrieved by the said order. Hence the plaintiff/appellant has come before this Court with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Heard Mr. Banerjee, senior Learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Das, learned senior Counsel, appearing for the opposite parties. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned. Let me now consider the merit of this revisional application in the facts of the instant case.

(3.) The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration of their tenancy right in respect of the suit property and for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant/opposite party No. 1 from disturbing their possession in the suit property. The plaintiff claims that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, namely, Promoto Bhushan Ray was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit property by the trustee of the Gita Bhawan Trust, sometime in the year of 1960. The said tenant started carrying on his business in the said premises by obtaining necessary licnece from the concerned authority. The plaintiff further claims that the said Promoto Nath Ray died on 5th November 1973 leaving his two daughters, namely, Gita Rani Chowdhury and Mira Rani Chowdhury who became the tenants-in-common in the suit premises by inheritance. The said two daughters of the original tenant paid rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 75/- per month to their landlord upto December 2003. Such rent was collected by the authorized agent of the landlord, namely, the defendant No. 1 herein who used to receive such rent from the tenants by granting the rent receipts therefor. It was further stated therein that since January 2004, the landlord started refusing to accept the rent from the mother of the plaintiff on the pretext that since the co-tenant Gita Rani Chowdhury expressed her intention to discontinue the said tenancy, they would not accept the rent from the other co-tenant. As a matter of fact, due to non-cooperation of one of such tenants, namely Gita Rani Chowdhury, the ration shop business had to be discontinued therein. Subsequently Gita Rani Chowdhury died sometime in 2004 and the mother of the plaintiff namely, Mira Rani Das also died on 17th January, 2009. On the death of the petitioner's mother the petitioner became the tenant in respect of the premises. Since the defendant started disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property with the help of the local antisocial on and from 16th April, 2009, the instant suit was filed for declaration of their right of tenancy in the suit property and for injunction.