GOPAL CHANDRA GHOSH Vs. TINKARI RAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order impugned dated 13th January, 2014 passed by the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 824 of 2012 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an order directing the defendant/opposite party to remove the padlock or any other resistance from the gate of the common passage so that the petitioner/plaintiff/tenant may get free access to the suit property from main road forthwith, failing which direction may be given to the officer-in-charge, Burtolla police station to remove the same and to give free access to the plaintiff for ingress and egress to the suit property from the main road. The brief facts, which have come out from the pleadings and materials available on record, reveal that the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of two bed rooms, one varandah, common bath and privy along with free ingress and egress through the door on the eastern side of the varandah together with other facilities and amenities attached thereto are on the ground floor at premises No. 21/D, Principal Khudiram Bose Road, Calcutta-700006, police station Burtolla. The suit premises was originally belonged to one IIa Dey. The petitioner/plaintiff/tenant was inducted by her in respect of the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 80/- payable according to the English calender month. The rate of rent has been increased subsequently time to time and enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- per month. The plaintiff paid rent to IIa Dey upto March, 2011 and rent receipts were granted in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter rent from April to July, 2011 was paid for which no rent receipt was granted. Subsequently, plaintiff came to know that IIa Dey sold away the property to the defendant i.e. the opposite party. The plaintiff could not deposit rent before the Rent Controller. However, rent was paid to the defendant/opposite party who gave assurance to give pucca rent receipt but ultimately did not give the same and always received rent issuing kancha receipt. Subsequently, defendant asked the plaintiff to return the kancha receipts with further assurance that he would grant pucca rent receipts for the current month as well as for the month of May to June, 2011. Plaintiff on good faith handed over the said kancha receipts to the defendant but the defendant did not return kancha receipts nor granted pucca receipts for the past and for current month.

(2.) Suddenly, the defendant put a padlock on the front gate of the common passage, which is for ingress and egress of the plaintiff and the plaintiff reported the matter to the local police station and also to the local people. Thereafter the defendant/opposite party opened the padlock from the common gate on the common passage. After the incident the petitioner filed the instant suit being title suit No. 824 of 2012 narrating all these facts. The plaintiff made a prayer that the situation warranting an order of temporary injunction with an ad interim rule pending disposal of the injunction application restraining the defendant and his men and agents from in any way trying to put padlock or any other resistance on the gate of the common passage which is meant for ingress and egress of the plaintiff from and to his tenanted portion in the manner whatsoever. In the plaint, petitioner/plaintiff stated that cause of action of the instant suit arose on 26th May, 2012. After filing the suit the plaintiff moved an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 and prayed for an ex parte order of injunction and the learned Trial Court on hearing the petitioner being satisfied about the plaintiffs status as a tenant under the previous landlady 11 a Dey and thereafter under the defendant Tinkari Roy, who purchased the suit property and being satisfied that the present purchaser being the opposite party is trying to put padlock on the main gate of the entrance of the plaintiff found that the plaintiff has huge number of rent receipts and electric bills issued by the C.E.S.C. authorities and the plaintiff has his possession in the suit property as a tenant, so his right is to be protected and accordingly, an order of interim injunction is passed against the defendant directing the defendant to maintain status quo in respect of egress and ingress to the suit premises from the main gate till 2nd July, 2012. Petitioner/plaintiff was directed to comply with the provision under Order 39 rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The interim order was continued from time to time and remained valid till 12th February, 2014.

(3.) During pendency of the suit and continuation of the ad interim order of injunction passed by the learned Trial Court the plaintiff found that the defendant/opposite party after coming to know about the interim order, soon after the service of notice the defendant put padlock on the gate of the common passage and as a result, the plaintiff has been compelled to stay outside the suit property. Under the aforesaid circumstances the plaintiff made a prayer for passing an order directing the defendant to remove the padlock from the gate of common passage so that the plaintiff may get free ingress and egress to the suit property from the main road. The copy of the application was served by the petitioner upon the defendant/present landlord. The defendant/opposite party submitted his written objection to the application filed by the plaintiff under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that written objection the opposite party/defendant stated that the plaintiff has made out a false and baseless allegation and the application is clear abuse of process of law. It was stated by the defendant/opposite party that after his purchase he used separate entrance exclusively which the plaintiff never used at any point of time, over and above the plaintiff and his family members never reside in the back portion of the suit premises more than decades and at present some unknown persons are trying to occupy the suit premises, the suit premises is wrongly described, the electricity is consumed through the adjoining premises by the plaintiff's men. The opposite party never blocked any passage as falsely alleged but it is adjoining premises owner who has blocked the opening through the wall between the two rooms and the plaintiff with ill motive wants to disturb defendant's exclusive entrance door.