AJOY KUMAR SADHU Vs. RINA SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This instant revisional application has been directed against the Judgment and order dated 17th May, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-Ill, Sealdah in Misc. Appeal 34 of 2006 whereby the Judgment and order dated 20th March, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 291 of 2005 was affirmed.

(2.) As noted in the revisional application as well as the objection thereto, the father of the petitioner was inducted in the suit premises by the erstwhile landlady. The petitioner was accepted as a tenant in respect of the suit property after demise of his father. On the death of erstwhile landlady, Smt. Kamala Saha inherited the property as her sole legal heir. Subsequently, it devolved upon Jogeswari Saha who during her lifetime executed a power of attorney in favour of the plaintiffs, authorizing them to collect rents from her tenants. On the defendant approaching the plaintiffs for according permission to change his nature of business of a grocery shop to that of a retail medicine shop in the suit premises, the proposal so made by the petitioner/ defendant was accepted. The rent was enhanced from Rs. 125 to 2000 per month, payable as per English Calendar month. Permission was also accorded to effect repair in the suit premises for the purpose of running the business.

(3.) Alleging that the defendant in the garb of repair had dismantled the wall of the suit premises and also encroached upon the portions of the plaintiff in the suit premises, the plaintiffs approached the Calcutta Municipal Corporation for redressal of their grievance in view of illegal work of renovation. The plaintiffs also sought intervention of the local police station. A suit for declaration and injunction was filed for the purpose of restraining the defendant from doing the illegal work of renovation. Prayer for mandatory injunction for dismantling the illegal construction was also made on behalf of the plaintiff. The Trial Court was pleased to pass an order of injunction, restraining the defendant from carrying out renovation work in the suit premises. He was also restrained from changing the nature of the character of the suit property. The order of injunction was made absolute vide order dated 20/03/06. By another order on the same date, the learned Trial Court was pleased to allow the application under section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiffs with a direction upon the defendant not to run the retail medicine shop in the suit premises until further order. Both the orders were challenged before the Appellate Court. Affirming the order of the Trial Court, the learned Additional District Judge was pleased to dismiss the misc. appeal.