AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This First Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against an order dated 11th September 2017 passed by the learned judge, 6th Bench, City Civil Court at
Calcutta in Title Suit No. 71 of 2017. By the order impugned, the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction was rejected by the learned trial
judge.
Let us now consider as to whether the appeal has any merit so as to deserve admission under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiffs claim that though a licensee agreement was entered into between the defendants (licensor) and the plaintiffs (licensee) in respect of the
suit premises but in fact the plaintiffs were inducted as tenants in respect of the suit premises. They claim that they regularly paid rent to the
defendants-landlords even after the expiry of the term stipulated in the last executed deed of licence.
The defendants contested the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction by contending that the plaintiffs were never inducted as tenants in
respect of the suit premises. They contended that the plaintiffs were inducted in the suit premises as licensees on the basis of an agreement for a
limited period, which was subsequently extended from time to time on the request made by the plaintiffs. It was further contended that such licence
was created in respect of only 700 sq.ft.area. It was further contended that the plaintiffs have also surrendered their possession by executing a deed
of surrender.
 The learned trial judge after considering the respective contentions of the parties and the materials on record rejected the plaintiffs’ application
for temporary injunction by holding, interalia, that the plaintiffs were unable to prove legality of their possession in respect of 2800 sq.ft.space as the
plaintiffs were never given possession of 2800 sq.ft.of space on the strength of the deed of licence. The learned trial judge also held that the dispute as
to the genuineness of the deed of surrender as raised by the plaintiffs cannot be decided at this stage as decision on such dispute requires trial on
evidence.
We have heard Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants.
Mr. Chatterjee is unable to produce any material before us as to the legality of his clients’ possession in respect of 2800 sq.ft.area. Though his
clients disputed the genuineness  of the deed of surrender but he agrees with the finding of the learned trial judge that such a dispute as to the
genuineness of the said deed of surrender can only be resolved by trial on evidence.
As such, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
We decline to admit this appeal for hearing under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal thus stands rejected.
Since we have dismissed the appeal, no further order need be passed on the application filed in connection with this appeal. The application is also
deemed to be disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.