A tenant by sufferance does not create a relationship of landlord and tenant.

( 1 ) ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Order No 119 dated 20th September, 2000, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior division), 2nd Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, in Title Suit No. 2 of 1993 filled by the Plaintiff/opposite party herein, rejecting the defendant/ appellant's application for temporary injunction filed on 27th March, 2000.

( 2 ) AS recorded by the learned Court below, the suit was for ejectment and mesne profits and was at the stage of peremptory hearing and evidence when the aforesaid application was filed by the ddefendent appellent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure praying for an order of injunction to restrain the plaintif/opposite party from letting out the common lawn and open space pertaining to premises No. 13/1 Ballygunge Park Road, Calcutta - 700 019. and also from holding any marriage party or any ceremony or other functions and from allowing vehicles with goods meant lor such functions to enter into the premises" and the open space therein at night till the disposal of the suit. The learned Court below upon considering that the suit was at the peremptory stage and also upon considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience of both sides rejected the defendant/ appellant's said application for injunction on contest but without costs. The suit was iixed for further evidence on 28th November, 2000.

( 3 ) THERE is no dispute that the defendant/appellant was inducted into the suit premises under a Deed of Lease for 21 years rommencing from 1st May. 1960, granted by one Jamilur Rahaman, who was the lessee of the suit premises under the previous owner. The lease in favour of the said Jamilur Rahaman Khan had expired by efflux of time at the time of filing of the suit. 4 The plaint case is that the plaintiff purchased the suit premises for valuable consideration on 8th December. 1966, and the defendant had duly attorned its tenancy under the said Deed of Lease dated 1st May, 1960 in favour of the plaintiff and has accepted the plaintiff as its land-lord in respect of the suit premises by paying lease rent in terms of the Deed of Lease dated 1st July. 1960. for the period upto 30th April, 1981. 5. The Deed of Lease executed in favour of the defendant/appellant ended by efflux of time on 1st May. 1981 and the defendant/appellant became obliged to quit and vacate the suit premises and handover vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff. As the defendant/appellant did not do so. the plaintiff/opposite party by a notice dated 19th/22nd June, 1981. filled upon the defendant/appellant to quit and vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. The defendant/ appellant, however, did not comply with the said requisition and continued in possession despite such notice. 6. Admttedly. the plaintif/opposite party did not take any steps against the defendents/appllents for almost 12 year, and ultimately filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/appellant on or about 5th January. 1993. The defendant/appellant entered appearance in the suit and is contesting the same by filing its written statement The specific case made out by the defendant/appellant in the written statement is that the tenancy of the defendant/appellant is governed under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, in view of S. 3 of the said Act 7. When the suit was ready for hearing and the stage of adducing evidence had anrived the defendent/appellant filed an application for injunction on 27th March, 2000, alleging that under the lease agreement executed in favour of the defendant/appellant it was also entitled to use of the lawns and gardens and pathways in the suit premises and the plaintiff/opposite party had no light during the pendency of the suit to prevent and/or obstruct the defendant/appellant and its officers from using the lawns and gardens and pathways as permitted under the said dee