KADDAD SALES AGENCY Vs. OM PRAKASH JULUKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal from original order is directed against an order dated 9th July, 1982 passed by Order no. 101 dated 9th July, 1982, passed in Title Suit no. 1462 of 1979 by shri B.G. Chakraborty, learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, was presented on 16th August, 1982. On or about 8th August, 1979, the plaintiff/respondent Om Prakesh Juluka, presented the concerned Title Suit no. 1462 of 1979 before the 12th Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, against the Defendant/Appellant M/s. Kakod Sales Agency, for declaration that the defendants had no right, title and interest to make any additions and alterations and/or constructions inside their tenancy at premises no. 19, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises), and also prayed for permanent injunction restraining them, their men and agents from making any alterations and additions and/or making any construction and/or causing any damages within their tenancy at the said premises. Admittedly, the plaintiff was and still is the landlord of a portion of the said premises and it has been alleged that the defendant was inducted as a tenant by him, in respect of one godown on the eastern building on the ground floor of the said premises and they were holding the concerned tenancy under the plaintiff at a monthly rental of Rs. 1,000/- payable according to English calendar month.

(2.) It has further been alleged that on the evening of 4th August, 1979, the defendants brought men, mistries, massions and cement, bricks, stonechips and other building materials and started illegal construction within their tenancy and thereby they had caused damages to the load bearing walls and also on the partition walls and have made big holes for the purpose of fixing iron joists, so as to construct a mezzanine floor within their tenancy. Such work, has been claimed to have commenced without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. It has further been stated that on detecting the above, the plaintiff's employees rushed to the defendants' godown and asked them to stop such illegal work and construction and on that, their men and darawns threatened those employees of the plaintiff with dire consequences and, since there was apprehension of breach of peace, they at that time, took no steps.

(3.) The plaintiff has further stated that the defendants have no right, title or interest to make any constructions, additions and alterations and/or cause any damages to the tenancy in question. In fact, it. has also been alleged that the defendants have already broken a portion of the load bearing wall within their premises as mentioned above and it was also claimed that there was every likelehood that the building may collapse and in that event there would be imminent danger to human life and property. Such act or actions of the defendants were claimed by the plaintiff to be absolutely illegal.