MAGNET CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD Vs. APEX & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was admitted for hearing on 6th September, 2016 under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After the appeal was admitted, we directed this appeal and the application filed in connection therewith to be listed on 20th September, 2016 as 'To Be Mentioned' matter with a clear understanding that the appeal and the application will be taken up for hearing on the returnable date. Accordingly, the matter is listed today for hearing. Since the presence of rest of the defendants/respondents is not necessary for disposal of this appeal, we on the request of the learned counsel appearing for the parties dispense with the requirement of service of notice of appeal upon the said defendants/respondents. Let us now consider the merit of the appeal in the facts of the present case.

(2.) The impugned order of status quo was passed by the learned Trial Judge on 11th July, 2016 in a suit for declaration and for injunction filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1. A tripartite agreement was entered into between the defendant No.1/appellant as developer, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 as tenant in the existing building and the other defendants/respondents as the owner of the property. It was agreed by the parties in the said agreement that a multi-storied building will be constructed by the developer over the property of the defendants/ proforma respondents after demolishing the construction which was existed on the said property. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 was admittedly a tenant in respect of one shop room in the ground floor mentioned in schedule 'A' of the plaint under the rest of the defendants/proforma respondents. The parties agreed that the tenant will vacate his tenancy to facilitate the construction on the suit property by the developer and whenever the new building will be constructed, a shop room measuring about 310 sq.ft. as mentioned in schedule 'B' of the plaint will be let out to the plaintiff/respondent No.1. Admittedly, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 vacated the 'A' schedule property i.e. his tenancy. Construction of G+5 storied building is almost complete excepting the finishing works.

(3.) The legality and/or propriety of the said ad interim order of injunction is under challenge in this appeal.