CENTRAL GROUP Vs. UNIT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing stems from an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the order being No. 26 dated 28.04.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 2nd Court, Alipore in T.S. 364/99.

(2.) The circumstances leading to the above application are that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of office accommodation space measuring 1192 sqft. on the second floor in the southern portion of the building commonly known as Unit House situated at 23A/49, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata-700 053 being recorded as municipal premises No. P-40, Block-B, New Alipore, Kolkata within P.S. New Alipore. At the time of induction, the defendant/petitioner happened to be a partnership firm which was subsequently converted into a sole proprietorship business of Mr. Subir Basu and the same was intimated by the petitioner to the plaintiff/ O.P. A suit for ejectment being T.S. 1/1999 was filed by the plaintiff/ O.P. against the defendant/petitioner in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), First Court, now transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), 9th Court, Alipore and renumbered as T.S. 7/2005. The plaintiff/0.P. came up with a story that on 07.12.99 he came to learn of the alleged intention of the petitioner to surrender and/or transfer the suit property to third party which is absolutely incorrect, and the same gave rise to T.S. No. 364/99 filed by the plaintiff/ O.P. in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 2nd Court, Alipore for permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner from transferring, sub-letting or parting with the possession of the disputed property to third party. The petitioner filed an application on 17.08.2001 under Order 14 Rule 2(2) read with Order 7 Rule ll(d') of the CP Code in the said T.S. 364/1999 for disposal of the suit on the preliminary issue of law as to whether the suit was maintainable in its present form and whether it is barred under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act which was rejected by the learned Court below by the impugned order dated 28.04.2003.

(3.) Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order the petitioner has come up before this Court.