ORDER OCD - 32
In the High Court at Calcutta
Commercial Division
Original Side
IA NO. GA-COM/1/2025
In CS-COM/142/2025
MOHATA PROJECTS LLP
VS
KHIMJEE HUNSRAJ
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
Date : APRIL 6, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Baisya, Adv.
Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Anshunath Chakraborty, Adv.
Ms. Ranjana Seal, Adv.
.. for Plaintiff.
Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Shovik Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Debadyuti Chakraborty, Adv.
Ms. S. Ghosh, Adv.
..for Defendant.
The Court:- Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, learned advocate appears for
the plaintiff/tenant.
Mr. Rupak Ghosh, learned advocate appears for the
defendant/landlord.
This is a suit filed by the tenant with the following reliefs:
"In such circumstances, the plaintiff seeks leave dispensing
with the mandatory pre-institution mediation as contemplated under
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and claims:
2
(a) Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to remain in
peaceful possession of the suit premises and to sublet the same
without reference to the defendant, in accordance with the
agreement dated 25th January 1988.
(b) Declaration that the defendant does not have any right
to terminate the agreement, save and except in accordance with the
provisions of the agreement dated 25th January 1988.
(c) Declaration that the notice dated 22nd August 2025 is
null and void, invalid, inoperative and/or non-est in the eye of law
and the same be delivered up and cancelled.
(d) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and/or its
men, agents, assigns, alter egos, servants etcetera from disturbing
and/or interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff
and/or its sub-lessee and/or to otherwise interfere with the rights of
the plaintiff as recorded in the agreement dated 25th January 1988.
(e) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from
taking any steps to evict the plaintiff except in accordance with the
agreement dated 25th January 1988, either on the basis of the notice
dated 22nd August 2025 or otherwise.
(f) Receiver.
(g) Attachment.
(h) Costs.
(i) Such further and/or other relief or reliefs, as may be
deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court."
An interim order has been passed by a co-ordinate Bench dated
September 25, 2025 restraining the landlord from disturbing and/or
IA No. GA-COM/1/2025 in CS-COM/142/2025
A.R.,J.
interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and/or its sub-
tenants.
At this juncture, Mr. Rupak Ghosh, learned advocate appearing
for the landlord, on instruction from his learned advocate on record,
submits that the landlord has already served a notice terminating the
tenancy dated November 18, 2025.
Perusing the reliefs claimed in the plaint filed by the tenant, this
Court is of the firm and considered view that the reliefs claimed in the
plaint can be taken by the tenant as a defence, in the event an eviction
suit is filed by the landlord. However, till date there is no eviction suit
filed by the landlord.
Mr. Rupak Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the landlord,
on instruction from his learned advocate on record present in Court,
further submits that they shall not evict the tenant without due process
of law.
After considering the reliefs claimed in the plaint and the
submissions made on behalf of the landlord, this Court is of the further
view that there is no requirement of keeping this suit pending any
further, filed by the tenant.
However, the tenant shall be at liberty to take all its defence that
will be available to him, if any eviction suit is filed by the landlord
against it. The defence of the tenant would also cover the points taken by
the tenant in the instant suit.
It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion
on the claims and rival claims of the parties in the instant suit and
IA No. GA-COM/1/2025 in CS-COM/142/2025
A.R.,J.
parties shall be at liberty to raise all their points in an appropriate
proceeding, if initiated.
It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the termination notice dated November 18, 2025 issued by
the landlord. This Court has also not expressed any opinion on the
Agreement for Tenancy dated January 25, 1988.
Affidavit in reply filed in Court today by the tenant is taken on
record.
In view of the above, nothing further survives in the instant civil
suit.
Accordingly, by consent of the parties, the suit is treated as on
day's list, and the instant civil suit being CS-COM/142/2025 stands
disposed of, without any order as to costs.
The order of injunction passed in the civil suit stands vacated.
All connected interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)
sm
IA No. GA-COM/1/2025 in CS-COM/142/2025
A.R.,J.
