Sri Bholanath Kundu vs Smt. Vimali Debi

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

The affidavit-of-service filed today be kept on record.

Despite service, none appears for the respondent.

In view of the short conspectus of the appeal, the same was directed to be listed for hearing under the heading “Specially Fixed Matters” and is accordingly taken up.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues that the impugned order of status quo is absolutely unreasoned. Merely the respective cases of the parties were narrated in a gist and thereafter the learned Trial Judge proceeded to grant status quo till disposal of the suit.

Learned counsel points out that in the injunction application filed in the Trial Court, on the premise of which the impugned order was passed, there was no prayer for temporary injunction, but only ad interim injunction.

Secondly, the defendant/appellant made out a specific case before the learned Trial Judge that the plaintiff/respondent herein, who claims to be the widow of the original tenant, never resided at the suit premises and has been resident of a different State.

There is substance in the appellant’s contentions.

Although the prayer for ad interim injunction could be still construed to cover temporary injunction as well, the learned Trial Judge ought to have considered whether a prima facie case was made out by the plaintiff/respondent as to her tenancy rights in the suit premises.

It transpires from the impugned order that such aspect of the matter was not even considered by the learned Trial Judge. In the event no prima facie proof of the plaintiff’s residence at the suit property during the lifetime and at the point of demise of the original tenant is made out, the plaintiff cannot claim the benefit of being a tenant within the contemplation of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (in short “the 1997 Act”).

Accordingly, the learned Trial Judge, at least, ought to have recorded his findings on the said aspect of the matter before granting a blanket order of status quo.

Accordingly, FMA No. 432 of 2026 is allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned order, bearing Order No. 9 dated February 5, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, Tenth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1692 of 2024, and remanding the injunction application to the Trial Court for a fresh adjudication on merits in the light of the above observations, upon passing a reasoned order in accordance with law and upon giving adequate opportunity of hearing to both sides.

It is made clear that the findings recorded in this judgment are tentative in nature and shall not influence the learned Trial Judge at time of final disposal of the injunction application.

It is expected that the learned Trial Judge shall dispose of the injunction application afresh within a reasonable period, preferably within four weeks from the date of communication of this order to the learned Trial Judge.

CAN 1 of 2026 is accordingly disposed of as well.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

I agree.