Calcutta High Court
Md. Riyaz Khan & Another vs Safed Detergent Private Limited And ... on 5 December, 2025
Author: Arindam Mukherjee
Bench: Arindam Mukherjee
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee
CS No. 213 of 2024
WITH
G.A/4/ 2025
GA/1/2024, GA/2/2024, GA/3/2024, GA NO.5/2025, GA/6/2025,
GA/8/2025, GA/9/2025
MD. RIYAZ KHAN & ANOTHER.
Vs.
SAFED DETERGENT PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS
For Plaintiff : Mr. Abhrajit Mitra Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee
Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharyya
Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar
Mr. Arnab Sardar
Mr. Souradeep Banerjee,
Advocates
For Applicant in GA/3/2024 and : Mr. Sankarsan Sarkar,
GA/5/2025. Mr. Aditya Kanodia,
Advocates
For Petitioner in GA/8/2025. : Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr.Adv.,
Mr. Arik Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Srijani Mukherjee, Adv.
Advocates
For Defendant no.24. : Mr. Sushovit Dutt Majumder,
Mr. Arif Ali,
Mr. Aritra Basu,
Ms. Rajeshwari Prasad,
Advocates
Mr. Sakya Sen Sr. Adv.
For Defendant no.10. :
Mr. Zeeshan Haque,
Mr. S. Choudhury,
Advocates
: Mr. Ardhendu Nag, Adv.
For the Defendant no.9. Mr. Anupam Kumar Dey, Adv.
Mr. Dibakar Das, Adv.
Mr. S. C. Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Soham Banerjee, Adv.
Advocates
For Defendant no.24 (The : Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, Adv.
Agarpara Company Limited) Mr. Jaydeb Ghorai, Adv.
Mr. Diptesh Ghorai, Adv.
Advocates
Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee, Adv.
For the defendant no.5. :
Mr. Debdut Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Biswaroop Ghosh, Adv.
Advocates
25.08.2025
Heard on :
Judgment on : 5th December, 2025
Arindam Mukherjee, J:
1.In a suit for injunction several applications have been filed by the parties thereto as also by a non-party seeking intervention. The first in order of time is that by the plaintiffs' which is an application inter alia for injunction being G.A. no. 1 of 2024.
2. G.A. No. 2 of 2024 is an application filed by defendant no. 24 inter alia for rejection of plaint, G.A. No. 3 of 2024 and G.A. No. 5 of 2025 are applications filed by a non-party (Agarpara Jute Mill) for leave to intervene in the nature of pro interesse suo.
3. G.A. No. 4 of is an application by defendant no. 10 for rejection of plaint and dismissal of suit.
4. G.A. No. 6 is an application filed by the defendant no. 8 for expunging its name from the array of defendants. G.A. No. 8 of 2 2025 is an application for dismissal of the application being G.A. 2 of 2024.
5. G.A. 9 of 2025 is an application filed by defendant no. 9 for expunging its name from the array of defendants.
6. Since there is a dispute regarding the representation of defendant no. 24, the application for rejection of plaint filed by the defendant no. 24 being G.A. No. 2 of 2024 and the application for dismissal and G.A. 8 of 2025 being an application also by defendant no. 24 represented by a different group are not taken up for consideration at the first instance, though both the groups who claim to represent the defendant no. 24 have been given an opportunity of hearing. The application made by third party to the suit is also not taken up for consideration at the first instance, although the said applicant had been given an opportunity of hearing.
7. G.A. 4 being an application for rejection of plaint by the defendant no. 10 is therefore taken up for consideration by giving the applicant, the plaintiff, the two groups of defendant no. 24, defendant no. 8, defendant no. 9 and the third party intervener. Argument on behalf of defendant no. 10 (applicant). A. The defendant no. 10 has sought for rejection of plaint on three broad heads. The first ground is that the suit involves the adjudication of right, title and interest in an immovable property situated outside the jurisdiction of this court and as such the same is a suit for land. Secondly, it is contended that the plaintiff does 3 not disclose any cause of action and as such it is hit by the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC). Thirdly the suit is barred under the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short '1963 Act') in as much as the plaintiff has only claimed for injunction and has not sought for any relief regarding declaration of their rights which was necessary in the facts of the case as alleged by the plaintiffs. B. The applicant while elucidating the first point has submitted that prayer (a) and (b) of the plaint are in effect intended to seek specific performance of the revenue sharing agreement dated 1st August, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the said agreement) The said relief(s) are based on alleged breach to have been committed by defendant no. 24 in respect of the rights alleged to have been conferred on the plaintiff no. 2 concerning premises no. 8/11 B.T. Road and 28 B.T. Road, Kol-58 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). There is also relief claimed against the defendants no. 1 to 23 who according to the plaintiffs are tenants/occupants of different parts of the said premises. It is further submitted that allegation of breach would necessarily require adjudication of the right, title and interest of the plaintiff no. 2 with regard to said premises before it can be held that the plaintiff no. 2 is entitled to receive rent from the said defendants. The moment, the right, title and interest of the said premises which is admittedly situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court are required to be adjudicated, the suit becomes a suit for land. The relief claimed 4 under prayer (c) of the plaint is in effect consequential to the relief to those claimed in prayer (a) and (b) thereof. On a conjoint reading of the reliefs claimed in this suit along with a holistic consideration of the averments made in the plaint will clearly demonstrate that the suit is not simplicitor for claiming monetary relief but will require adjudication of right, title and interest of an immovable situate outside the jurisdiction of this court to even grant any monetary relief and as such is a suit for land. C. It is also submitted that there is no privity of Contract between the defendants no. 1 to 23 including the defendant no. 10 (applicant) and the plaintiff no. 2 which entitled the said plaintiff to claim any right as against the tenants being defendant no. 1 to 23and as such the suit is not maintainable as against the defendant no. 10 (applicant) or any of the other tenants. In absence of any contract unless the plaintiff no. 2 establish its right of and in the immovable property, the question of receiving rent or payment thereof cannot does not arise. Moreover the Revenue Sharing Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the said agreement) which is annexed at page 63 of the plaint does not confer any right on the plaintiff no. 2 to collect any rent from any of the tenants including the defendant no. 10 (applicant). The letter dated 31.08.2024 which is annexed at page 92 of the plaint clearly demonstrate that the defendant no. 10 was inducted by Agarpara Jute Mills Ltd. (in short AJML) which is also borne out from the averments made in the plaint. These facts taken together clearly demonstrate that the plaintiffs have no 5 cause of action as against the defendants/tenants including the defendant no. 10 (applicant) apart from the fact that the suit is a suit for land. The suit is therefore required to be dismissed following the ratio laid down in 2022 (12) SCC 641 [Rajendra Bajoria & Ors. v. Hemant Kumar Jalan & Ors.] as the suit is bound to prove abortive even at the final hearing. D. In support of the third ground, it is submitted by the applicant that in paragraph 9 of the plaint, it has been alleged that the defendant no. 24 has prevented the plaintiff no. 2 from realizing the rents from different tenants for which the legal rights of the defendant no. 2 under the said agreement has been impinged. It is also clear from the averments from the plaint that the defendant no. 24 had allegedly denied right of the plaintiff no. 2 to be entitled to collect rent from the tenants of the said premises. It is therefore necessary for the plaintiffs to seek a declaration of its right as required under Sec. 34 of the 1963 Act when the defendant no. 24 had denied the legal character or rights of the plaintiffs. Moreover injunction prayed for against defendant nos. 1 to 23 cannot also be granted without the prayer for declaration. The plaintiffs have sought for only relief of injunction and as such the suit is barred under the provisions of Section 34 of the 1963 Act.
Arguments on behalf of defendant no. 5.
I. It is submitted by the defendant no.5 that from the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed to the plaint it 6 is apparent that the plaintiff no. 2 is claiming to be entitled to realize rent and occupational charges from defendant no. 1 to 23 who are tenants of the different portion of the said premises. The defendants no. 1 to 23 have been admittedly inducted by Agarpara Jute Mills Limited (AJML) which is not a party to the suit but have referred to as the erstwhile lessee of defendant no. 24 in the plaint. It is also clear from the plaint and the documents annexed thereto that neither of the tenants including the defendant no.5 have been inducted by defendant no. 24 but had been inducted by AJML. The notices issued to several of the tenants which are annexed to the plaint are letters written by the plaintiff no. 2 in terms of the said agreement but are not letters of attornment on face of records attorning the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff no. 2. In absence of the attornment of tenancy and there being no privity of contract between the defendant no. 1 to 23 and the plaintiff no. 2, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the rents or occupational charges from the said defendants. The suit will require adjudication of rights of the plaintiff no. 2 to claim such rent/occupational charges if any apart from the fact that the plaintiffs have no cause of action as against the defendant no. 1 to 23 including the defendant no. 5. The pliant, therefore, has to be returned for being a suit for land apart from being dismissed as against defendant no. 5.
7 II. It is further contended by the defendant no. 5 that from the averments made in the plaint it is explicit that the defendant nos. 1 to 23 are operating either godowns or warehouses from different portions of the said premises. The tenancy of the defendants no. 1 to 23 including that of the defendant no. 5 is therefore, squarely covered under the provisions of Section 2(1)
(c) (vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the '2015 Act'). Any dispute in connection with an immovable property exploited for commercial purpose gives rise to a commercial dispute and as such the suit ought to have been framed as a commercial suit and filed before a commercial court. The suit is also barred under the provisions of Order II rule 2 of CPC on a meaningful reading of the plaint as no relief for declaration is sought for as required under Section 34 of the 1963 Act. Furthermore, the plaintiffs have suppressed the fact of having filed a separate suit before the learned District Court at Barasat being Title Suit no. 821 of 2024 wherein the reliefs claimed in this suit could have also been claimed. The plaint therefore, is liable to be rejected on the ground of suppression of material facts.
III. In this context the said defendant has relied upon the judgments reported in 2013(1)SCC 625 [Virgo Industries(Eng.) Private Limited Vs. Venturetech Solution Private Limited]. The said defendant therefore has also sought for rejection of the plaint and dismissal of suit.
8 Argument on behalf of defendant no. 24 though the group having filed G.A. no. 2 of 2024.
i) It is submitted that the suit is a suit for land as will appear from the pleadings made in the plaint. The plaint proceeds on the basis that AJML is an "erstwhile lessee" of defendant no. 24 and the said erstwhile lessee has claimed right in respect of the said premises. The first relief claimed in this suit is in the form of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant no. 24 including the erstwhile lessee from releasing any amount as rent, occupational charges or the like from defendant no. 1 to 23 in respect of the godowns, warehouses, office etc., under their possession which are all situated at the said premises. The moment a relief in the nature of perpetual injunction is sought against the defendant no. 24 which includes its erstwhile lessee (AJML) though it is not a party read with the averments in paragraph 10 and other paragraphs of the plaint will require adjudication of right title and interest of and in the said premises being an immovable property admittedly situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The suit becomes therefore, a suit for land. The primary object of the suit, the right to collect rent in respect of the said premises which will also require the adjudication of the plaintiffs right, title and interest in the said premises to grant such relief, if any to the plaintiffs and as such it is a suit for land. The second relief claimed in the suit is perpetual injunction restraining the 9 defendant nos. 1 to 23 from paying rent, occupational charges or the like to any person or entity other than the plaintiff no. 2 in respect of the various portions of the said premises. The third relief is mandatory injunction directing the defendant no. 24 to collect rents, issues and profits in respect of the godowns, office etc., situated at the said premises. Admittedly there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff no.2 and the defendant nos.1 to
23. It is clear from the averments made in the plaint that these defendants were inducted by AJML, the erstwhile lessee of defendant no.24. There is also no letter of attornment of tenancy in favour of the plaintiff no.2. In order to grant these reliefs on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto, it is necessary to adjudicate the plaintiffs right in respect of the said premises which is admittedly an immovable property situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court and as such the suit is nothing but a suit for land. The court in order to grant relief claimed in the suit will have to mandatorily enter into the adjudication of the right of the plaintiff no. 2 to claim rent from the defendant no. 1 to 23 in respect of the said premises will, therefor, require adjudication of the right of the plaintiff in order to realize rent or occupational charges. This will in effect require adjudication of right, title and interest of the plaintiff no.2 of and in the said premises. The suit is therefore a suit for land.
10
ii) The suit is also barred by law as the plaint proceeds on the basis that there exists an order of demerger by virtue of which the said premises was transferred to AJML from defendant no. 24 and the said defendant no. 24 ceased to be the owner thereof. This fact will be evident from paragraph 8 to 11 of the plaint. The scheme has not been set aside and is binding upon defendant no. 24. The defendant no.24 could not have executed the said agreement inasmuch as it does not retain any right in respect of the said premises. The suit therefore is based on an ex facie void document being in the teeth of the judgement and order dated 17th January, 1986 by which the scheme of demerger was sanctioned by this court and as such should be dismissed. The suit is also hit by the provisions of section 2(1)(c) of the 2015 Act as the said premises, on the basis of the averments made in the plaint clearly demonstrate that the same is used for commercial purpose. This brings any dispute in relation thereto. Under the ambit of section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the 2015 Act. The suit as framed is also not maintainable apart from the fact that the same is a suit for land.
iii) It is furthermore contended that the plaintiffs have suppressed material fact of having filed a suit against AJML before the District Court at Barasat which is borne out from an order dated 5th august, 2024 passed by the learned District Judge at Barasat in the said suit. The said order is in public domain and therefore can be considered even though not annexed to the 11 plaint. The said defendant has in this regard referred to the judgments reported in (2016) 1 CHN 581 [State Trading Cooperation of India Limited & Anr. Vs. Glencore Grain B.V] and (2004) 3 SCC 172 [Pearlite Liners(P) Ltd Vs. Manorama Sirsi]. Furthermore, the suit has been filed for simplicitor injunction without seeking for any decree for declaration. On the basis of the averments made in the plaint it was necessary to seek declaratory relief in the suit. In this context the said defendant has relied upon the judgments reported in (2019) 17 SCC 692 [Jharkhand State Housing Board vs. Didar Singh & Anr], (2022) 12 SCC 641 [Rajendra Bajoria &ors vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan & Ors.] and (2008) 4 SCC 594 [Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy(dead) by LRS & Ors.]. The defendant no. 24 has also contended that the suit is on an abuse of process of Court and of law.
iv) The applicants in G.A. 3 and 5 of 2024 has contended that it is an admitted position as will appear from the averment made in the plaint that the defendant no. 1 to 23 are the tenants inducted by AJML and that the said AJML is asserting right of ownership in respect of the said premises. AJML, although a necessary party to the suit has not been made a party to avoid disclosure of a prior suit filed by the plaintiffs against AJML before the District Court at Barasat wherein the relief(s) claimed in this suit should have been claimed. This suit will necessarily require adjudication of right, title and interest in respect of an 12 immovable property situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court and as such it is a suit for land.
v) The applicants of GA 8 of 2025 has supported the plaintiffs and opposed the rejection or return of the plaint on the ground that this Court has the jurisdiction to receive, try and determine this suit.
Arguments on behalf of the plaintiff.
Referring to paragraph 1 and 7 of the plaint, it is submitted that the said agreement is a simplicitor a revenue sharing agreement and the plaintiff has been put into possession of the said premises with a right to enjoy peaceful possession by defendant no.24 of the said premises. The erstwhile lessee had handed over vacant peaceful possession of the demised premises to the defendant no. 24 and as such there is no necessity of adjudication of right title or interest in respect of an immovable property. Furthermore, it is also the case of the plaintiffs that on a conjoint reading of paragraphs 8 to 29 of the plaint it will appear that the cause of action in the suit is that the defendant nos. 1 to 23 may be aided and abated by the defendant no. 24 are not paying rent to the plaintiff no.2 on and from 1 August, 2024 that is why only money decree in form of mandatory injunction is required to be passed. The suit is for realization of money and as such cannot be said to be one which is a suit for land with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted that the parties are all 13 within jurisdiction and the relief claimed is predominantly for monetary claim and as such this Court has the jurisdiction to receive, try and determine the suit. In the context of a demurrer application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC it is submitted that the principles are now well settled. The averments made in the plaint are to be considered as true and correct. The plaintiff has relied upon a judgment reported in (2004) 12 SCC 376 [Indian Mineral and Chemicals Co. &Ors. Vs. Deutsche Bank] and (2008) 12 SCC 661[Kamala &Ors Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa & Ors]. It is submitted that whether a suit is for suit for land is to be judged on the basis of the reliefs claimed. The relief(s) claimed are of paramount importance in the present case. No relief has been claimed either for determination of title or for recovery of possession and for any other reliefs relating possession, effecting the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also relied upon (2009) 5 MAH LJ 615 [WIMCO Ltd.,Mumbai Vs. Matoshree Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai & Anr.] and (2003) SCC online Cal 10 [Bajranj Lal Bhansall Vs. SJS Nirman (P) Limited] to further submit that the suit as framed in the present case cannot be coined as a suit for land. The plaintiff further submits that it is a settled position of law that the defence canvassed by the defendants cannot be looked into while adjudication of an application for rejection of plaint. The issue as to territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law and as such the plaint can neither be rejected on the background of the facts pleaded at the threshold nor can the suit 14 at this stage be dismissed. In this context the defendant has relied upon judgment reported in (2019) 12 SCC 205 [Isha Distribution house private Limited Vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited & Anr] to further contend that a mixed question of law and fact cannot be a ground for the suit being nipped at the bird. It is to be set down for trial to grant the plaintiffs to prove their case by leading evidence. The plaintiff has further submitted that a suit for recovery of rents is not a suit for land. In this context the plaintiffs have relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1960 Cal 123 [Bengal Agricultural and Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs Corporation of Calcutta & Anr.] and 1897-98 (2CWN 718). The plaintiff also says that a suit by a landlord against tenant for realization of rent at a rate agreed upon does not require adjudication of right tile and interest and as such is not a suit for land. The tenant can never deny the title of the landlord. Plaintiffs have also submitted that in absence of a claim for prayer for declaration the suit cannot be dismissed as the plaintiff has the right to amend the plaint and if necessary include the prayer for declaration. In this regard the plaintiffs have relied upon a judgment reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 [Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRS and Ors.]. The plaintiff has also relied upon the record of rights which has been pleaded in the plaint to submit that there is a statutory presumption of the correctness of what is stated in the record of rights in view of the provisions of section 51A(9) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. In this regard the plaintiffs have relied 15 upon a judgment reported in (1988) 1 CHN 500 [Joyshree Sen Versus Jaytilak Sen and Joyottam Sen Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.]. Furthermore, according to plaintiff the provisions of Sec. 4 (1) of the 1955 Act has elevated the possessory right of a raiyat to that of a pure owner of a land with the rights attached thereto. The plaintiffs have relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2012 Cal 148 (The State of West Bengal Vs. Star Iron Works Ltd. & Ors.) and (2007) 2 CHN 142 [Falakata industries & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.; in this regard. The plaintiffs also say that the issue of Order II Rule 2 of CPC is pending before the learned 3rd Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Barasat in Title Suit no. 821 of 2024 and as such the same cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint at this stage. The plaintiff in this regard has relied upon a judgment reported in (2014) 6 SCC 424 [Coffee Board Vs. Ramesh Exports Private Limited], (2010) 10 SCC 141[Alka Gupta Vs. Narender Kumar Gupta] and (2023) 19 SCC 244 [Prem Kishore & ors. Vs. Brahm prakash & Ors.]. The plaintiffs have also submitted that the suit is not hit by the provisions of section 2(1)(c) in view of the ratio laid down in the judgment reported in (2024) SCC Online Cal 9922 [Lord Grih Nirman Private Limited Vs. Merlin Projects Limited]. The plaintiff therefore submits that the application should be rejected.
Discussion and Analysis 16 a. Before considering the arguments advanced by the parties, it is necessary to set out some of the paragraphs of the plaint for better appreciation of facts and considering the respective arguments in the light thereof.
"3. The said premises comprises of 55 acres of land, comprising of 2(two) sections, one being 4 acres approximately comprised in a jute mill and the other being the remaining area comprising of godowns, warehouses and other buildings which at all material times have been let out to different tenants/licensees and the like being the defendant nos. 1 to 23. Copies of the LR Records of Rights pertaining to the said premises in the name of the defendant No. 24 along with copies of its English translation are annexed hereto and marked with the letter "A".
Even in the Rs record of rights, the said premises is in the name of the defendant No. 24, which the plaintiffs crave to refer to at the time of hearing , if necessary.
7. The plaintiffs state that on and from the date of execution of the said agreement, they became entitled to collect all rents, issues and profits arising out of the said premises from the tenant/occupants being the defendant Nos. 1 to
23. It was and is the duty and obligation of the defendant No. 24 to ensure that all the tenants including the defendant Nos. 1 to 23 pay rents to the plaintiffs on and from the month of August, 2024.
17
8. However, the plaintiff were not able to collect rents from the defendants Nos. 1 to 23, thereby compelling them to issue notices to each of these defendants calling upon to pay the rents for the month of August, 2024 to the plaintiff No. 2.
Copies of each of these notices dated 31st August, 2024 issued by the plaintiff No. 2 upon the defendant Nos. 1 to 23 are annexed hereto and collectively marked with the letter "E".
9. Inspite of issuance of the notices to the defendant Nos. 1 to 23, no rent was paid by these defendants to the plaintiff No. 2 even after 31st August, 2024. The plaintiffs made enquiries and came to learn that at the behest of the defendant No. 24, the defendant Nos. 1 to 23 had not paid the rent to the plaintiff No. 2.
However, after issuance of the notices dated 31st August, 2024 to each of the defendant Nos.
1 to 23, the said defendants did not pay rent even to the defendant No. 24. In this regard, a notice dated 23rd September, 2024 was issued by the plaintiff No. 2 to the defendant No. 24 calling upon them to not collect rent from the defendant Nos. 1 to 23 and to ensure that these defendants pay rent to the plaintiff No. 2.
11.From the orders passed in these writ petitions, it would be evident that the plaintiff No. 2's possession and occupation of the said premises has been admitted coupled with the contention of the said jute mill that the plaintiff No.2's possession remain undisturbed. From the orders passed, it would also be evident that 18 no Court has interfered with the plaintiff No.2's possession of the said premises including the jute mill and that the plaintiff No. 2 from time to time has obtained various licenses for running the jute mill. Copies of the licences issued to the plaintiff No. 2 to run the jute mill are annexed hereto and collectively marked with the letter "K". The important fact is that in none of these writ petitions, the said jute mill (Agarpara Jute Mill Limited) has claimed any right in respect of the godowns, warehouses and the like which are tenanted to the defendant Nos. 1 to 23. No order has been prayed for in any of the writ petitions nor any order passed regarding the warehouses, godowns etc. in the possession of the defendant Nos. 1 to 23. In fact, the case of the said jute mill in the writ petitions is that by way of an unstamped and unregistered order of the High Court dated 17th January 1986, the jute mill premises alone [expressly excluding the godowns, warehouses, structures and the other adjoining areas] is to be transferred to the said jute mill.
13. From the records of the other proceedings, it would appear that the defendant No. 24 had, in fact, inducted the jute mill as a tenant by way of an unregistered agreement dated 1st August, 1991, which expired by efflux of time on 31st July, 2024. Be that as it may, it may be noted that the defendant No. 24 had handed over vacant and peaceful possession of the entirety of the said premises including the jute mill area to the plaintiff No. 2 in pursuance of the said 19 Revenue Sharing Agreement, which fact is also admitted in all the records of the earlier proceedings.
14. The plaintiffs state that recently the defendant No. 24 through one Jarjious Shaikh [not a director on record of the defendant No. 24] has filed a writ petition being WPA No. 25335 of 2024 challenging the plaintiffs' trade licence issued by the Panihati Municipality for running the jute mill. This writ petition was moved on 4th October, 2024, when no order was passed. A copy of the writ petition being WPA No. 25335 of 2024 [without annexure] is annexed hereto and marked with the letter "L".
16. From the facts stated above, it has become necessary for the plaintiffs to file the present suit in aid of collection of rents, issues and profits arising from the said premises from the defendant Nos. 1 to 23.
17. It came to the plaintiffs' knowledge sometime around 15th October, 2024 that the defendant No. 24 directly and/or indirectly through its erstwhile tenant i.e. the said jute mill, is taking steps to realise the rents/occupation charges from the defendant Nos. 1 to 23 that had become due to the plaintiff No. 2 on and from August, 2024. As stated earlier, the rents were not paid by the defendant Nos. 1 to 23 since August, 2024. As stated earlier, it has come to the plaintiffs' knowledge that during the puja vacations, 2024, when the Courts are closed, the defendant No. 24 directly 20 and/or through its agents, servants and assigns including the said jute mill would collect and realise rents from the defendant Nos. 1 to 23 in breach of plaintiffs' rights under the said agreement."
b. On the basis of the averments made in the pliant which includes the foregoing paragraphs, the plaintiffs have sought for the following reliefs :
"The plaintiffs pray for leave under Clause 12 of the Letter Patent and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and claim -
a) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No. 24, its agents, servants, assigns, erstwhile lessee etc. from realising any amount as rent, occupation charges or the like from the defendant Nos. 1 to 23 in respect of godowns, warehouses, offices etc. situated at said premises being No. 28, B. T. Road and No. 8/11, B . T. Road, Kolkata - 700058 more fully described in the Schedule hereunder;
b) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 23 from paying any rent, occupation charges or the like to any person or entity other than the plaintiff No. 2 in respect of the various portions of the said premises being No. 28, B. T. Road and No. 8/11, B. T. Road, Kolkata - 700058 more fully described in the Schedule hereunder which are in the possession or occupation of the defendant Nos. 1 to 23;21
c) (c) Mandatory injunction directing the defendant Nos.1 to 23 to pay all rents, issues and profits in respect of the godowns, offices etc. situated at the said premises being No. 28, B. T. Road and No.8/11, B. T. Road, Kolkata 700 058, morefully described in the Schedule hereunder which are in the possession and occupation of the defendant Nos.1 to 23 for the period commencing from 1st August, 2024;
d) A decree for rendering of true and faithful accounts of all rents, issues and profits paid and/or may be paid in respect of any part of portion of the suit premises being No. 28, B. T. Road and No.8/11, B. T. Road, Kolkata 700 058, morefully described in the Schedule hereunder by the defendant Nos. 1 to 23 for the period commencing from 1st August, 2024 and an enquiry be also made in this regard and a decree for such sum be passed in favour of the plaintiffs as may be found to have been paid / realised as rents, issues and profits from out of the said premises post 1st August, 2024;
e) Interim interest and interest upon judgment at the rate of 18% per annum;
f) Receiver;
g) Injunction;
(h) Costs;
(i) Further or other reliefs".22
c. Before proceeding further on merits it is to be noted that as per the settled principles at the stage of deciding a demurrer application the averments in the plaint are to be considered as true and correct and the Court can look only at the averments contained in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto. The defence of the defendant/defendants are of no consideration at this stage.
d. The defendants have raised several points to submit that the plaint is to be rejected and the suit be dismissed. Amongst all these points the jurisdiction point raised is of paramount importance as it goes to the root of the matter. If the Court lacks in jurisdiction it is not required to go into the other points. The issue as to whether the suit is a suit for land is as such taken up for consideration at the first instance. e. On a reading of the plaint it will appear that defendant no. 24 (Agarpara Company Limited) is according to the plaintiffs, the owner of one immovable property comprising of two holding nos. being 28 BT Road and No. 8/11 (formerly 5/10) BT Road, Kolkata-700058 (referred to hereinabove as the said premises).
The said premises is admittedly situated outside the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. The premises in question comprises of land, jute mill, warehouses and other buildings. The said defendant no. 24 inducted AJML as a lessee by way of an unregistered agreement dated 1st August, 1991 in respect of the said premises. The agreement has expired by efflux of time on 31st July, 2024. The plaintiff no. 2 and the defendant no. 24 entered into an agreement dated 1st August, 2024 tilted as "Revenue 23 Sharing Agreement" (referred to hereinabove as the said Agreement). By virtue of the said agreement, the plaintiff no. 2 has claimed to be entitled to realize rents and occupation charges from defendant nos. 1 to 23 who were tenants in a portion of the said premises on having been inducted by AJML. In order to claim rent on the basis of the averments made there has to be a contract between the tenant and the person claiming such rent (plaintiff no.
2) or a letter of attornment from the erstwhile landlord if an interest is created in favour of a person (plaintiff no. 2) allowing him to collect rent. In the instant case assuming without admitting that the said agreement has created an interest in favour of plaintiff no. 2 to collect rent but there is no privity of contract between the defendant no. 1 to 23 and the defendant no.
24. There is no attornment of tenancy in favour of the plaintiff no. 2. Coupled with this, the averment that the lease in favour of the erstwhile lessee and defendant no. 24 has expired by efflux of time and that the defendants no. 1 to 23 were inducted by AJML the erstwhile lessee puts the right of the plaintiff no. 2 under challenge. AJML is not a party to this suit. It is also evident that the plaintiffs have filed a suit before the District Court at Barasat from orders passed therein which is in public domain and can be taken note of as to the correctness of the filing of the said suit while adjudicating a demurrer application. The plaintiffs have also not disputed this fact though not stated in the plaint.
f. The documents referred to by the plaintiff as letter of attornment and annexed to the plaint are on the face of it a self-proclaimed document originating from the plaintiff no. 2 by citing the said agreement on the strength whereof, the plaintiffs say to be entitled to receive and realize rent 24 and occupational charges from the defendants no. 1 to 23. This fact again raises an issue where the right of the plaintiff no. 2 to claim rent is required to be adjudicated. It is also apparent from the plaint that defendant no. 24 who is according to the plaintiff is the owner of the said premises has been directly and/or indirectly through its erstwhile lessee that is AJML is taking steps to realize the rent /occupational charges from the defendant no. 1 to
23. f. Rent in ordinary parlance means the amount agreed to be paid by the tenant to a landlord for the occupation of any premises. Landlord ordinarily means to be the person for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent for any premises whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person. g. In the instant case, as admitted by the plaintiffs and also appear from the averments in the plaint that the defendants nos. 1 to 23 were inducted by AJML. Rent therefore, is ordinarily payable either to the defendant no. 24 or to AJML as the case may be depending upon the terms of the lease between defendant no. 24 and AJML. Admittedly, there is no contract between the plaintiff no. 2 and the defendant nos. 1 to 23. There is also no attornment of tenancy. Under such circumstances, the defendant no. 1 to 23 has no obligation to pay rent to the plaintiff no. 2 only on the basis of the said agreement.
h. In paragraph 7 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that defendant nos. 1 to 23 are either tenants or occupants of the said premises. In paragraph 13 of the plaint, the plaintiffs say that the defendant no.24 had handed over the 25 vacant and peaceful possession of the entirety of the said premises including the jute mill area to the plaintiff no. 2. By virtue of the statement, in paragraph 7 of the plaint, it is apparent that the defendant nos. 1 to 23 are in occupation of the major portion of the said premises as tenants or occupants on being inducted by AJML and as such the question of defendant no. 24 handing over the vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises in its entirety is an issue which is required to be gone into which will necessarily require adjudication of possession, rights and title in respect of an immovable property situated admittedly outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
i. The said agreement is annexed to the plaint and as such can be looked into for the purpose of adjudicating a demurrer application. On a plain reading of the said agreement, it is apparent that the right, title and interest of the immovable property will fall for consideration prior to allowing the claim made by the plaintiffs for recovery of rent or a direction upon the defendants no. 1 to 23 to pay rent to the plaintiff no. 2. This is more so, because admittedly, under an unregistered lease deed as stated in paragraph 13 of the plaint, the said premises was leased out by the defendant no. 24 to the AJML and AJML have inducted the defendants no. 1 to 23. Unless it is shown that the said AJML has no existing, right, title or interest, in the said immovable property, the question of the plaintiff no. 2 to receive the rent from the defendant nos. 1 to 23 will also not arise only by virtue of the said agreement in the facts and circumstances borne and of the plaint. Unless, it is established that neither the defendant no. 24 nor the AJML but it is only the plaintiff no. 2 who is entitled to collect and realize 26 the rent from the defendant no. 1 to 23 the relief(s) claimed in the plaint cannot be granted. The moment the right of the plaintiff no. 2 is to be adjudicated in the light of the averments as in the plaint against the defendant no. 24 or the AJML, the right, title and interest of an immovable property admittedly situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court will fall for consideration. The suit therefore will be a suit for land and as such this Court will have no jurisdiction to receive, try and determine the same. j. Moreover, on a holistic reading of the plaint, for passing a decree to realize rent by enforcing the rights under the said agreement or for a decree of injunction restraining the defendant no. 24 to collect rent will require adjudication of right, tile and interest of and in the said immovable property. k. On a meaningful reading of the plaint, as a whole, and the arguments advanced by the parties, in the light of the judgments cited at the Bar, I find that the right, title and interest in an immovable property situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court will fall for consideration in order to grant the relief(s) claimed in the suit.
l. The suit, therefore, is a suit for land. The law in this regard has been discussed in several judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the parties and recorded hereinabove. Most of these judgments have been taken note of in Lotus Homes (supra) relied upon by the applicant. Even if it is assumed that the dominant purpose of the suit is the monetary relief as submitted by the plaintiffs then also the right, title and interest in an immovable property will fall for consideration to grant such relief. Even though there is no quarrel as to the proposition in the 27 judgments cited by the plaintiffs to contend that a suit for recovery of rent is not a suit for land but such ratio has been applied to the facts of each case. The facts in the instant case as discussed hereinabove is not restricted to the rights of recovery of rent only without adjudication of right, title, interest in an immovable property. It, therefore, involves adjudication of right, title and interest in an immovable property situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The contention of the plaintiffs so far as a trial is necessary is concerned, this Court is unable to accept the same for the reason that jurisdiction is a point of law and to decide the same in the facts of the instant case a trial is not required.
m. The other issues like plaint discloses no cause of action or the plaintiffs have no cause of action as against the defendants, the suit is barred under Section 34 of the 1963 Act or being barred under the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of CPC, the suit is required to be dismissed as abuse of process of Court and law for material suppression of fact may be points of substance as appears from the arguments advanced by the defendants but the same are not considered at this stage as I hold that the suit is one for land and this Court does not possess the territorial jurisdiction to receive, try and determine the same. These points are left open to be taken by the defendants as and when required. It will be also open to the plaintiffs to rebut such grounds as and when availed by the defendants. n. The application being G.A. no. 4 of 2024 filed by the defendant no. 10 is allowed.
28 o. The plaint filed in C.S. no. 213 of 2024 is, therefore, directed to be returned to the plaintiffs with Court fees upon completion of all formalities for being presented before the appropriate Court. The suit number should also be deleted from the database of this Court on the plaint being returned after completion of necessary formalities.
p. The applications being G.A. no. 2 of 2024, G.A. no. 3 of 2024, G.A. no. 5 of 2025, G.A.no.6 of 2025, G.A. no. 8 of 2025 and G.A. no. 9 of 2025 are disposed of without any order granting the applicants therein the liberty to file such application, if so advised at a subsequent stage. G.A. no. 1 of 2024 along with all affidavits shall also be returned to the plaintiffs. q. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis after compliance with all necessary formalities.
(Arindam Mukherjee, J.) 29