MIRTA LINA PR LTD Vs. FINLAY MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point requiring determination in this application is whether the applicants, Finlay Mills Ltd. and the Gold Mohar Mills Ltd., are entitled to an order of stay of a subsequent suit filed in this Court by the plaintiff Co. under Section 10 of the Civil P. C. ? To appreciate the contentions that have been raised before the Court, it will be necessary to give a very brief resume of the material facts not in dispute. The plaintiffs are the tenants of the entire ground floor of premises No. 12-B/1. Park Street, Calcutta and the defendant Mills are in occupation of the premises under an agreement dt. Dec. 26, 1975, contended by the plaintiff company to be a leave and licence agreement, whilst the defendants asserting that a greater interest is created in its favour thereunder.

(2.) On or about Nov. 8, 1979 the applicants filed Title Suit No. 2013 of 1979 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, inter alia, praying for a declaration that the notice dt. Aug. 29. 1979 issued by the respondent Co. is invalid, inoperative and void ab initio and that the agreement dt. Dec. 26, 1975 is still subsisting and that the defendant No. 1 is not entitled to unilaterally terminate the same or to revoke the grant made thereunder. A permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing and/ or interfering with possession of the plaintiffs in the suit premises and from disturbing or interfering with the plaintiff's enjoyment of all rights, agreements and facilities in connection therewith and from giving any further effect to the impugned notice in breach of the agreement was also sought.

(3.) On Dec. 14, 1979 the present suit was filed in this Court by the respondent Co. claiming inter alia, a declaration that the plaintiffs tenancy of 12-B/1. Park Street, Calcutta is not subject to or incumbered by any sub-tenancy in favour of the defendants and its possession of the suit premises, mesne profits and/or compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises by the defendants from Dec. 1, 1979 until possession is delivered. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicants that taking any further steps in this suit would incur unnecessary costs and result in multiplicity of judicial proceedings as the principal issue likely to arise in both the suits are identical and substantially the same matters are in issue. Alternatively, if the application is not maintainable under Section 10, an order of stay should be passed under Order 39 of the Code and/or under Section 151 invoking the Court's inherent jurisdiction so to do.