INDIAN CABLE CO LTD Vs. SUMITRA CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal from an original order is by the plaintiff, the Indian Cable Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff company). The order impugned is one dated May 12, 1983, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore, thereby refusing a prayer for injunction made by the plaintiff on an application under O.30, Rr.1 and 2 read with S.151 of the Civil P.C. Such an application was filed in Title Suit No. 206 of 1982 instituted on September 23, 1982. The plaintiff's case as made in the plaint and in the application for injunction is shortly as follows :

(2.) Since July 1,1970, the plaintiff-company had been a monthly tenant under the defendant/respondent in respect of the suit premises which is a first floor flat at premises No. 510, Jodhpur Park, Calcutta, initially at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- which was increased on the request of the defendant to Rs. 1,184/- with effect from April 1, 1981. The suit property was being used by the plaintiff company for the purpose of providing residential accommodation to its officers and one Sri R. N. Gupta an officer of the plaintiff-company was in occupation of the suit premises up to January 31, 1982, when he retired and vacated the suit property on and from February 1, 1982. On February 2, 1982, the plaintiff caused an inventory to be made of the furniture, fixtures and fittings of the plaintiff lying in the said property under the signature of the said Sri R. N. Gupta and the plaintiff's officer Sri G. N. Chatterji. To protect the plaintiff's property, the plaintiff-company engaged Messrs. Security Consultants and Deployment Services to provide security guards and such guards were provided on and from February 2, 1982. The defendant was quite aware of those facts, the rent for the months of February and March, 1982, was duly paid and received by the defendant. The defendant, however, after duly receiving the rent for the month of March 1982, in advance started abusing the security guards and preventing them from having ingress and egress to and from the suit property since March 15, 1982, and a complaint to that effect was lodged with the Lake Police Station on March 25,1982. On March 29,1982, the plaintiff filed a suit, being Title Suit No. 168 of 1982 in the 3rd court of the learned Munsif at Alipore praying for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's right of ingress and egress to the suit property and for a mandatory injunction for removal of all obstructions to the access of the plaintiff's men and agents to the suit property. On March 30, 1982, on an application for interim injunction, the learned Munsif passed an ad interim order directing maintenance of status quo and the plaintiff preferred an appeal on April 1, 1982. In the appeal, the plaintiff-company filed an application for temporary injunction to which an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the defendant on April 2, 1982, alleging therein for the first time that she had taken possession of the said flat on March 24, 1982. The plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the defendant had surreptitiously taken possession of the suit property, when Title Suit No. 168 of 1982 was filed. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of possession and for injunction.

(3.) Having filed such a suit the plaintiff filed an application for injunction for restoration of possession of the suit property on the allegation that the plaintiff having been in lawful possession of the suit property as a monthly tenant and the defendant having obtained the rent for the said property even for the month of March 1982, took the law in her own hands in wrongfully throwing out the plaintiff in a surreptitious manner and in breach of the plaintiff's statutory protection under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. It was claimed that the defendant acted not only wrongfully but also mala fide when she forestalled the suit against her and wrongfully kept the plaintiff out of the suit property in clear anticipation of a legal proceeding against her. Such being the conduct of the defendant it was claimed by the plaintiff that pending the suit the plaintiff-company should be restored to possession of the suit property.