AMITA SARBADHIKARY Vs. BANDANA SHOME & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order of ad interim mandatory injunction directing the defendant/petitioner to restore possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs/opposite parties passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No.34925 of 2014 on 17th January, 2017 is the subject matter of challenge in the instant revision.

(2.) For adjudication of the dispute raised in the instant revision, following facts are required to be recorded:-

(3.) One Dr. Dulal Chandra Shome, since deceased was a tenant in respect of the demised premises situated on the first floor of premises No.49, Lenin Sarani within P.S New Market where he used to run a business under the name and style of 'Shome's X-Ray Clinic'. On or about 13th June, 1985, the said Dr. Dulal Chandra Shome entered into an agreement with one Sudhir Kumar Nandi to continue with the aforesaid business of X-Ray Clinic in the said premises. After the death of Sudhir Kumar Nandi, his son Gobinda Nandi, plaintiff/opposite party No.3 has been running the said business. On the death of Dr. Dulal Chandra Shome, tenancy in respect of the suit room was devolved upon plaintiff/opposite parties No.1 and 2 as his legal heirs and successors. They also permitted plaintiff/opposite party No.3 to run the said business. On being permitted as such, the said Gobinda Nandi obtained licenses from the statutory authorities required for running the business of X-Ray Clinic. It is alleged by the opposite parties that on 9th May, 2014 opposite party No.3 was forcefully and illegally dispossessed from the suit room where he had been running the business of X-Ray Clinic for more than 50 years. He informed the matter to local P.S in writing on 13th May, 2014. It is also alleged that there are machinery in the suit room worth more than Rs.10,00,000/- . As the opposite party No.3 who was running X-Ray Clinic in the suit room with the permission of the lawful tenants, i.e. opposite parties No.1 and 2 and he was dispossessed otherwise by due process of law, they filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act against defendant/petitioner for recovery of possession of the suit room.