Calcutta High Court
Celica Commerce Pvt. Ltd vs Liao Feng Chi & Ors on 19 March, 2025
OD- 2
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
GA No. 1 of 2025
In
C.S. No. 11 of 2025
CELICA COMMERCE PVT. LTD.
Vs.
LIAO FENG CHI & ORS.
BEFORE :
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Hearing Concluded On : 13.03.2025
Order On : 19.03.2025
Appearance:
Mr. Samrat Sen, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhya, Adv
Ms. Shrayashee Das, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Kumar Thakur, Adv
Mr. Tridibesh Dasgupta, Adv
... for the plaintiff.
Mr. Arik Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Debjani Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Rajib Mullick, Adv.
2
Mr. Biswaroop Ghosh, Adv.
Mrs. S. Chakraborty, Adv.
...for the defendant nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. Rajashree Dutta, Adv.
Ms. Pooja Sah, Adv.
Mr. Pratik Dutta, Adv.
...for the respondent no.3.
ORDER
1. The plaintiff has filed the present application being G.A. No.1 of 2025 praying for ad-interim injunction. Learned Counsel for the defendants have also appeared and copies of the application along with documents were served upon the defendants.
2. The plaintiff is the owner of the 4,645 square feet being the portion of the fifth floor of the multi storied building known as "Park Centre" situated at premises No. 24, Park Street, Kolkata - 700016.
3. As per request of the defendant no.3, the plaintiff and the defendant no.3 entered into a registered Deed of Lease on 4th July, 2023 for a period of nine (9) years commencing from 4th July, 2023 to 3rd July, 2032 for a monthly rent of Rs. 5,50,000/- per month and the same would increase at the rate of 5% per annum every year.
4. In addition to the Deed of Lease, the defendant no.3 also entered into a "Maintenance and Management Agreement" with one Solvex Properties 3 and Services Private Limited for the purpose of maintenance of the suit property. At the time of entering into the Deed of Lease, the defendant no.3 was represented by one Seok Jung and one Prasanta Khanra and they were the only persons in control of management, administration and affairs of the defendant no.3.
5. On execution of the Deed of Lease, the plaintiff has handed over the possession of the premises to the defendant no. 3 on 4th July, 2023 and defendant no.3 has commenced business of running its restaurant-bar under the name and style of "Seoul Story". On 30th July, 2024, the defendant no.3 by an e-mail informed the plaintiff that the defendant no.3 is unable to run the business and intending to surrender the lease. On receipt of such information, the plaintiff by an email dated 2nd August, 2024, requested the defendant no.3 to meet the plaintiff to settle the outstanding dues and to finalize the process for handing over the possession of the suit property.
6. In the meeting held on 6th August, 2024, the plaintiff, representative of the defendant no.3, namely Seok Jung, defendant no.2 and one Nilanjan Banerjee attended the meeting. On being asked by the plaintiff, the defendant no.3 informed the plaintiff that the defendant no.2 and the defendant no.1 are the financiers of the defendant no.3 and defendant no.3 availed financial assistance from the defendant nos.1 and 2. 4
7. The plaintiff then allowed the defendant no.2 to attend the meeting as per the request of Shri Seok Jung. In the meeting, the defendant no.3 assured the plaintiff that the defendant no.3 will clear all the arrears of monthly rents and electric charges at the earliest. On 21st October, 2024, the plaintiff received an email from Seok Jung wherein it was informed to the plaintiff that the defendant nos.1 and 2 have purportedly been appointed as Directors of the defendant no.3 in place and stead of Seok Jung and Prasanta Khanra.
8. On receipt of the said email, the plaintiff immediately called upon the defendant no.3 to share the copies of DIR-12 Forms which are mandatorily required to be submitted with the concerned authorities for such appointments. The defendants failed to furnish such documents. The plaintiff has obtained documents from the official website wherein the plaintiff found that defendant nos.1 and 2 were not appointed as Directors of the plaintiff company.
9. In the month of November, 2024, the defendant no.3 has paid a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- towards the part payment of rent for the month of September, 2024. On 21st November, 2024, the plaintiff has issued a notice to the defendant no.3 calling upon the defendant no.3 to clear the dues amounting to Rs.14,71,000/- within 30 (thirty) days failing which the Deed of Lease would stand determined and the defendant no.3 would be required to quit and vacate the suit property. On receipt of such notice, 5 the defendant no.3 has paid and amount of Rs.4,71,000/- against the outstanding dues and thereafter the defendant no.3 has not paid any further amount.
10. On 23rd December, 2024, a meeting was held between the plaintiff and defendant no.3 wherein the defendant no.3 undertook to quit and vacates the suit premises by 31st December, 2024. The defendant no. 3 has also notified to the plaintiff that the defendant no.3 will quit and vacate the suit premises by 31st December, 2024. By a letter dated 28th December, 2024, the plaintiff has informed the defendant no.3 that the plaintiff is agreeing to allow the defendant no.3 to vacate the suit property within the lock-in-period. The plaintiff allowed the defendant no.3 to remove its installations within 15th January, 2025 and agreed to refund the residual security deposit after adjusting the dues till 31st December, 2024. It was also informed to the defendant no.3 that the electric connection along with other utilities at the suit property would be disconnected with effect from 1st January, 2025.
11. By a letter dated 15th January, 2025, the defendant no.3 informed the plaintiff that it is not possible for the defendant no.3 to clear all its installations and furniture from the suit premises within the agreed date but the defendant no.3 would like to surrender the possession of the suit premises "as is where is basis" without any further claim. By the said letter, the defendant no.3 called upon the plaintiff to accept possession of 6 the suit property and to absolve the defendant no.3 from any further payment of charges. The plaintiff has accepted the possession of the suit property from defendant no.3 with existing installations on 16th January, 2025 and since then the plaintiff is in continuous actual possession of the suit premises.
12. Mr. Samrat Sen, Learned Senior Advocate, representing the plaintiff submits that during the late evening and night of 16th January, 2025 and in the morning of 17th January, 2025, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 made several attempts to disturb the plaintiff's possession over the suit property. The defendants with their associates deliberately created a commotion and melee at the locale and in the process even broke open the locks of the entrance door of the suit premises but the security officers of the plaintiff successfully resisted the defendants' attempt to trespass into the suit property. He submits that the plaintiff has made a complaint to the police authorities. He submits that though the locks on the main entrance door are now in broken condition but the security personals of the plaintiff are at the main entrance door to prevent illegal trespass into the suit premises. The police have also permitted defendant nos.1 and 2 and their men to have free access to the lobby on the fifth floor where the suit property situated.
13. Mr. Sen submits that the defendant no.3 has, voluntarily and of its own free will and consent terminated the lease deed and handed over the 7 physical possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff and thus none of the defendants have any right, title and interest over the suit property.
14. Mr. Sen relied upon the Judgment in the case of Hammad Ahmed Vs. Abdul Majeed and Others reported in (2019) 14 SCC 1 and submitted that the Court would grant such an interim relief only if it is satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the Court and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the Court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice.
15. Per Contra, Mr. Arik Banerjee, Learned Counsel, representing the defendant nos.1 and 2 raised the point of maintainability of the suit as well as on merit of the present application. Mr. Banerjee on the point of maintainability of the suit submits that the suit is of commercial in nature as the suit premises is being used for the purpose of Restaurant and Bar. In support of his submission, he has relied upon paragraphs 5 and 11 of the plaint wherein it is admitted by the plaintiff the suit premises were leased out for the purpose of Restaurant and Bar.
16. Mr. Banerjee further relied upon Clause "E" as well as Schedule-II of the Deed of Lease dated 4th July, 2023, wherein it is categorically mentioned that the premises have been leased out for Bar and Restaurant. 8
17. Mr. Banerjee relied upon an unreported Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Maharshi Commerce Limited vs. Rajiv R. Balani & Ors. in C.S. No. 3 of 2019 dated 10th November, 2022, wherein this Court held that the suit property is exclusively used for the purpose of business and the paint is returned to the plaintiff with the liberty to file before the appropriate Court.
18. Mr. Banerjee relied upon bank transactions and submitted that the plaintiff has suppressed the fact that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have paid an amount of Rs.4,95,309/- on 20th September, 2024, Rs. 12,44,526/- on 20th September, 2024, Rs. 4,71,000/- on 11th December, 2024 and Rs. 2,65,940/- on 12th December, 2024 to the plaintiff.
19. Mr. Banerjee has produced one Memorandum of Understanding dated 7th September, 2024 entered between the defendant nos. 2, namely, Mr. Pratapaditya Lahiri and the directors of defendant no.3, namely, Mr. Seok Jung and Mr. Prasanta Khanra. Relying on the said Memorandum of Understanding, Mr. Banerjee submits that the defendant no. 3 was facing financial problem to start Bar-Cum-Restaurant business, the defendant no.2 agreed to give friendly accommodation advance to the defendant no.3 to start up the Bar-cum-Restaurant Business. He submits that the defendant no.2 has paid Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the defendant no. 3.
20. Mr. Banerjee submits that as per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 7th September, 2024, the defendant no. 3 agreed to transfer the 9 right, title and interest of the defendant no.3 company, namely, SEOKJIN HOSPITALITY PVT LTD along with the possession of the Bar-cum- Restaurant, namely, "SEOULSTORY" in favour of the defendant no.2 and defendant no.1.
21. Mr. Banerjee submits that in the said agreement, it was further agreed between the parties that the defendant no.3 is liable to pay an amount of Rs.16.50 lacs to the plaintiff, the defendant no.2 shall clear the said dues and has paid the said amount to the plaintiff.
22. Mr. Banerjee submits that the plaintiff in its letter dated 21st November, 2024 admitted that the monthly rent from July and August, 2024 and electricity charges would be cleared by the defendant nos.1 and 2 and after payment of such rent, the deed of revocation will be executed with respect to the existing Deed of Lease and new Lease Agreement would be entered with the defendant nos.1 and 2 and they continue to pay the Lease Rent.
23. Mr. Banerjee submits that the plaintiff was never in actual possession of the suit premises. He submits that if the communication between the plaintiff and defendant no.3 is taken into consideration, the same would maximum can be treated as constrictive possession and not actual physical possession.
10
24. Mr. Banerjee submits that no mandatory injunction can be passed as prayed for by the plaintiff. He submits that the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff.
25. Mr. Banerjee relied upon some photographs and submits that the defendant is in possession of the suit premises. The defendant nos.1 and 2 relied upon the two sale details through Zomato and submits that the defendant nos.1 and 2 are running the business of Bar and Restaurant in the suit premises.
26. Mr. Banerjee has relied upon the dictionary meaning of "Possession" from "The Law Lexicon" and submits that actual possession is when a man entreth into lands or tenements to him descended, or otherwise. He relied upon the Judgment in the case of Nathuni Prasad Singh and Another Vs. Mst. Kachnar Kuer and Others reported in 1964 SCC OnLine Pat 92 and submits that "Possession" means simply the owing or having a thing in one's power; it may be actual or it may be constructive. Actual Possession exists when the thing is in the immediate possession of the party; constructive possession is that which exists without actual personal occupation.
27. Mr. Banerjee relied upon the Judgment in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden and Others reported in (1990) 2 SCC 117 and submitted that the plaintiff has to made out strong case for trial and higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for 11 grant of injunction. The balance of convenience and inconvenience is in favor of the one who seeking such relief. He submits that the plaintiff is not fulfil any of the guidelines to obtain mandatory injunction.
28. Mr. Banerjee relied upon the judgment in the case of V. Chandrasekaran and Anr. Vs. Administrative Officer and Others reported in (2012) 12 SCC 133 and submits that plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and thus the plaintiff is not entitled to get any interim order.
29. Mr. Banerjee relied upon the Judgment in the case Kishore Kumar Khaitan and Another Vs. Praveen Kumar Singh reported in (2006) 3 SCC 312 and submitted that jurisdiction to grant an interim mandatory injunction could be exercised on entering a finding that on the day the order for maintaining the status quo was passed, the plaintiff was in possession and a day after the interim order was passed, he was in fact dispossessed.
30. Mr. Banerjee relied upon the Judgement in the case of Metro Marins and Another Vs. Bonus Watch Co. (P) Ltd. and Another reported in (2004) 7 SCC 478 and submits that in the said case also the Hon'ble Court has relied upon the Judgment in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden (supra) and held that an interim mandatory injunction can be granted only in exceptional cases coming within the exceptions noticed in the said judgment.
12
31. Mr. Banerjee relied upon the judgment in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ram Sukhi Devi reported in (2005) 9 SCC 733 and submits that final relief sought for in the writ petition should not be granted at an interim stage.
32. Mr. Banerjee relied upon the judgment in the case of Mira Banik and Anr. Vs. Smita Bhattacharyya & Ors. reported in 2003 SCC OnLine Cal 385 and submitted that the Court has to scrutinize the averments made in the plaint and the application for injunction and the materials placed before it while considering the existence of a prima facie case.
33. Mr. Banerjee relied upon the judgement in the case of Nandan Pictures Ltd. Vs. Art Pictures Ltd. and Others reported in 1956 SCC OnLine Cal 36 and submits that if the mandatory injunction is granted at all on an interlocutory application, it is granted only to restore the status quo and not granted to establish a new state of things, differing from the state which existed at the date when the suit was instituted.
34. Mr. Banerjee submits that if this Court will grant any interim order in favour of the plaintiff, the same would amount to final relief as prayed for by the plaintiff in the suit.
35. Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Learned Advocate representing the defendant no.3 submits that the defendant no.3 after the discussion on 23rd December, 2024, informed the plaintiff in writing that the defendant no.3 will close 13 the "Seoul Story" Restaurant with effect from 31st December, 2024. He submits that the defendant no.3 informed the plaintiff that the defendant no.3 will be vacating the premises by 31st December, 2024.
36. Mr. Dutta submits that on 28th December, 2024, the plaintiff directed the defendant no.3 to vacate and hand over the vacant peaceful possession after removing all the installations by 15th January, 2025. On 15th January, 2025, the defendant no.3 informed the plaintiff that the defendant no.3 was unable to clear all the furniture and installations from the premises and in order to stop further losses, the defendant no.3 would like to surrender the premises "as is where is basis". He submits that the defendant no. 3 requested the plaintiff to accept the possession and to absolve the defendant no.3 from any future payment of rent and other charges.
37. Mr. Dutta submits that by a letter dated 16th January, 2025, the plaintiff accepted the possession of the suit premises on "as is where is basis" and on the same day, the physical possession and the key of the suit premises were handed over to the plaintiff and plaintiff taken possession of the premises.
38. Mr. Dutta has handed over the copy of the report filed by the defendant no.2 before the Officer-in-Charge, Shakespeare Sarani Police Station, Kolkata dated 13th October, 2024 wherein the defendant no.2 made a complaint against the Directors of the defendant no.3 on the allegation 14 that the defendant no.3 misappropriated the amount of Rs. 1,17,50,000/- which the defendant no.2 has paid to clear the monthly rent and electricity charges. In the said report, there is no allegation or any averment that the defendant no.3 has handed over the premises to the defendant nos.1 and 2.
39. Mr. Dutta submits that the defendant no.3 has never handed over the possession of the suit premises to the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and they were never in possession of the suit property till the handing over possession by the defendant no.3 to the plaintiff.
40. As regard the maintainability of the suit, as per Deed of Lease entered between the plaintiff and the defendant no.3, the defendant no.3 has taken the said premises on lease for the purpose of running the business of Bar-cum-Restaurant. The case of the plaintiff and the defendant no.3 is that on 16th January, 2025, the defendant no.3 has handed over the possession of Bar-cum-Restaurant to the plaintiff "as is where is basis". Admittedly, the plaintiff is not running the business in the suit premises. The case of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 is that they are in occupation of the premises and have paid several amounts to the plaintiff by bank transfer in the account of the plaintiff. The communication dated 15th January, 2025 and 16th January, 2025 between the plaintiff and the defendant no.3 reveals that the defendant no.3 handed over the premises to the plaintiff. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is running 15 the business in the premises. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the night of 16th January, 2025 and early morning of 17th January, 2025, the defendant nos.1 and 2 through their men and agent tried to enter into the premises by breaking open the lock of the entrance door of the suit premises but the security guard of the plaintiff managed to restrain the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to enter into the premises. The defendant nos.1 and 2 tried to establish that the defendant nos.1 and 2 were running the business in the said premises by producing documents of Zomato that the food articles were sold through Zomoto but the document which the defendant nos.1 and 2 have produced is of dated 5th January, 2025 i.e. before the 15th January, 2025 and 16th January, 2025. The defendant nos.1 and 2 also tried to show their possession by way of photographs but the photographs is outside of the door and it is not clear that the photographs of which date.
41. In the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited Vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP & Another reported in (2020) 15 SCC 585, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"37. A dispute relating to immovable property per se may not be a commercial dispute. But it becomes a commercial dispute, if it falls under sub- clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act viz. "the agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce". The words "used exclusively in trade or commerce" are to be interpreted purposefully. The word "used" denotes "actually used" and it cannot be either "ready for use" or "likely to be used" or "to be used". It should be "actually used". Such a wide interpretation 16 would defeat the objects of the Act and the fast tracking procedure discussed above."
42. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 failed to show that as on the date of filing of the suit, the suit premise is exclusively used for commercial purpose. The defendant nos.1 and 2 raised dispute that they are in possession of the suit premises but there is no iota of documents to show that the defendant nos.1 and 2 are running business of Bar and Restaurant in the said premises. The unreported Judgment relied by the defendant nos.1 and 2 passed by this Case in the case of Maharshi Commerce Limited (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Division Bench in an appeal being APOT No. 242 of 2022 dated 19th January, 2023.
43. Considering the above, this Court finds that the question of maintainability raised by the defendant nos.1 and 2 is not sustainable.
44. On 30th July, 2024, the defendant no.3 informed the plaintiff that it is not possible for the defendant no.3 to run the business in the suit premises and requested the plaintiff to adjust the outstanding dues from the security deposit and also seek assistance to vacate the suit premises. After the said communication a meeting was held on 6th August, 2024 wherein it was informed to the plaintiff that the defendant nos.1 and 2 would pay monthly rent of July and August, 2024 along with electricity dues. It was also decided that deed of lease between the plaintiff and defendant no.3 would be revoked and new Lease Agreement would be entered with the 17 defendant nos.1 and 2, who would then continue to pay lease rent to the plaintiff. The defendant no.3 informed the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 and 2 would be new directors of the defendant no.3 company, accordingly, the plaintiff has requested to provide DIR-12 Forms. The defendant no.3 has not provided DIR-12 Forms to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has obtained Master Data from the Official Website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the plaintiff found that the one of the Director of the defendant no.3 company, namely, Seok Jung is ceased to be Director but Mr. Prasanta Khanra is remain as Director of the defendant no.3 company but the defendant nos.1 and 2 were not appointed as Directors of the defendant no.3 company.
45. There is no documents to show that the defendant nos.1 and 2 were appointed as Directors of the defendant no.3 company or the Directors of the defendant no. 3 company have handed over the possession of the business of Bar-cum-Restaurant to the defendant nos.1 and 2 and the defendant nos.1 and 2 have started running the said business in the suit premises.
46. As regard to the payment details relied by the defendant nos.1 and 2 which were transferred in the accounts of the plaintiff, the defendants nos.1 and 2 have agreed that they will clear the dues including electricity charges of the defendant no.3 of the suit premises, accordingly, the defendant nos.1 and 2 issued cheques in the name of the plaintiff. 18 Clauses - 3, 4 and 5 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 7th September, 2024 relied by the defendant nos.1 and 2 reads as follows:
"3. That the party of the SECOND PART has a due amounting to Rs. 16.5 Lakhs, which has to be paid to CELICA COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED. That the parties of the FIRST PART have agreed to clear the dues amounting to Rs.16.5 lakhs on behalf of the SECOND PART.
4. That the parties of the SECOND PART in return to the aforementioned due agreed to pay back the outstanding amount of Rs.16.50 lakhs within six months in a monthly installment basis minimum amount will be Rs.2,75,000/-.
5. That the party of SECOND PART agrees that if the party of the SECOND PART failed and/or neglected to clear the aforementioned outstanding of Rs.16.50 lakhs within six months, the party of the SECOND PART will hand over the monthly income of one of the outlets of the company namely, "KINGS BAKERY" and the said outlet will be chosen only by the parties of the FIRST PART till Rs.16.5 Lakhs is released."
It is clear that the defendant nos.1 and 2 have paid the dues of the defendant no.3 to the plaintiff in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding entered between the defendant nos.1 and 2 and the Directors of the defendant no.3 and the plaintiff is not the party to the said Memorandum of Understanding. Taking into consideration of the same, this Court finds that the defendant nos.1 and 2 have acted in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding entered between the defendant nos.1 and 2 and the Directors of the defendant no.3. The said act of the 19 defendant nos.1 and 2 does not prove that the defendant nos.1 and 2 were in possession and were running the business in the suit premises.
47. In Clause-1 of the Memorandum of Understanding, it was agreed between the defendant nos.1 and 2 and the Directors of the defendant no.3 that the defendant no.3 agreed to transfer the absolute right, title and interest of the defendant no.3 company along with Bar-Cum-Restaurant in favour of the defendant nos.1 and 2 and the defendant nos.1 and 2 will hold 50% share each in the defendant no.3 company but the defendant nos.1 and 2 have not produced documents that the defendant no.3 has transferred the shares of the defendant no.3 company and the business of the Bar-cum- Restaurant in the name of the defendant nos.1 and 2. Per contra, the plaintiff has obtained documents from the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 31st January, 2025 where from it reveals that the defendant nos.1 and 2 have not been appointed as directors of the defendant no.3 company.
48. It is the specific case of the defendant no. 3 that the defendant no.3 has surrendered the possession of the Bar-Cum-Restaurant to the plaintiff on 16th January, 2025 and the plaintiff has taken physical possession of the suit premises from the defendant no.3, thus it is crystal clear that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property.
49. The defendant no.2 has made a complaint to the Officer-In-charge, Shakespeare Sarani, Police Station on 13th October, 2024 wherein the 20 defendant no.2 stated about all the transactions and terms and conditions between the defendant nos.1 and 2 and the defendant no.3. In the said complaint also there is no whisper about the possession of the defendant nos.1 and 2 over the suit premises.
50. This Court considered the judgments relied by the defendant nos.1 and 2. The judgments relied by the defendant nos.1 and 2 are the settled position of law but the facts and circumstances of the present case is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the judgments relied by the defendant nos.1 and 2.
51. This Court finds that the defendant no.3 has surrendered the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff on 16th January, 2025 and the plaintiff has taken possession of the premises. The defendant nos.1 and 2 illegally broke open the lock of the entrance door of the suit premises and tried to enter into the suit premises to take possession of the suit premises. Considering the above, this Court finds that the plaintiff has made out strong prima facie case and balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff. This Court also finds that if at this stage an interim order is not granted, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury. This Court also finds that, the claim of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 is against the defendant no.
3. As per Memorandum of Understanding entered between the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and the Directors of the defendant no.3, no directorship of the defendant no.3 company were change in the name of the defendant 21 nos.1 and 2 and no fresh lease agreement is entered either between the defendant nos.1 and 2 and 3 or with the plaintiff with respect to the business of Bar-Cum- Restaurant in favour of the defendant nos.1 and 2. On the other hand, it is crystal clear that the defendant no.3 has handed over the suit premises to the plaintiff on 16th January, 2025 at 10.00 AM.
52. In view of the above, the defendants, their men, agents, servants and representatives are restrained form obstructing the plaintiff, its men, agents, servants, officers and representatives to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property till 23rd April, 2025.
53. The defendants are appearing in the matter, the defendants are directed to file affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks, reply, if any, within a week thereafter. List the matter on 23rd April, 2025 as "New Motion".
(KRISHNA RAO, J.) p.d/-