RANJAN KUMAR SINHA Vs. PRABIR KUMAR SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the aforesaid appeals have been preferred from the same order being Order No. 22 dated 16th January, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1684 of 2004 whereby the learned Judge of the Court below allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff and rejected the application for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by defendant No. 4.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit in the Court below for declaration that the said plaintiff is the sole tenant in respect of the suit premises under defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for accepting rents from the said plaintiff in respect of the suit premises. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in connection with the said suit for granting temporary injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 from changing the nature and character of the rent receipt in respect of the suit premises and also for restraining the defendant No. 1 from disturbing or interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises till the disposal of the suit. The plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 are the brothers. It is the contention of the plaintiff that since the inception of the tenancy only the plaintiff used to carry on the business in the suit property and alone used to pay the monthly rents to the defendant Nos. 2 & 3 although the receipts were granted by the defendant Nos. 2 & 3 in the joint names of plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. There were suits and counter-suits between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and according to the plaintiff, the parties settled the disputes out of Court. It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff that pursuant to the said amicable settlement, the defendant No. 1 surrendered his tenancy in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and by the letter dated 01.01.2002 the said defendant No. 1 voluntarily surrendered his tenancy right in favour of the plaintiff. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 permitted the plaintiff to get the name of the defendant No. 1 struck off from the rent receipt. The plaintiff also claimed that in the last week of September, 2004 when the landlords were requested to change the rent receipt in respect of the suit premises, the said landlords refused to comply with the said request and informed the plaintiff that the rent receipts could not be changed as the defendant No. 1 claimed himself to be the joint tenant and after paying rents for some months forcibly took away the receipts from the defendant Nos. 2 and

(3.) It has also been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the said plaintiff came to know that the defendant No. 1 asked the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to substitute the name of the defendant No. 4 in the rent receipts in place of the name of the said defendant No. 1. The plaintiff has further contended that a cloud has been cast on the tenancy right of the plaintiff as the defendants conspired with one another denying the plaintiff's right in the suit property.