( 1 ) ALL these three first miscellaneous appeals were taken up together as these are preferred against the self-same order being order dated 6th April, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 9th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 3 of 2005 thereby disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff by directing the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property with a finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the same and that the defendant no. 2 failed to prove that he was in possession of the property in his personal capacity.

( 2 ) F. M. A. T. No. 1335 of 2005 has been filed by defendant No. 2, F. M. A. T. No. 1345 of 2005 has been preferred by defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff has come up with a separate appeal being F. M. A. T. No. 1335 of 2005 against the said order.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed a suit in the 9th Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, alipore being Title Suit No. 3 of 2005 thereby praying for declaration that the plaintiff was a tenant under defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, their servants and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property as also of its furniture, fixture and computer and other equipments kept therein in any manner whatsoever. The plaintiff prayed for further declaration that the defendant No. 2 had no right to operate the bank account of the plaintiff being current account No. 0029-136274-050 with the Gariahat branch of defendant No. 3. The plaintiff further prayed for mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 3 to allow the plaintiff and/or the individual authorised by the plaintiff to operate the said bank account.

( 4 ) THE case made out by the plaintiff may be epitomised thus: (a) The plaintiff is a corporation incorporated under the appropriate law of the State of New Jersey, United States of America and is carrying on business of imparting Information Technology Education and Training and "contract staffing solutions" to their clients across the U. S. A. . (b) The plaintiff being interested in opening a branch in Kolkata for the purpose of its business duly applied to the Reserve Bank of India for such permission and appointed defendant No. 2 as the Chief Executive officer in relation to its affairs in India and granted him a power of attorney authorising to represent the plaintiff. (c) Ultimately, the Reserve Bank of India granted permission under the foreign Exchange Management (Establishment in India of a branch or office or other place of business) for establishing branch of its Office in india at Kolkata. (d) The defendant No. l is the owner of the premises No. P-87, Lake Road. After coming to learn that the said defendant was in search of a tenant for induction in the flat No. 4, on the first floor of the said premises, the plaintiff inspected such premises and found the same suitable for the purpose of locating its Kolkata Branch Office. (e) On discussions between the plaintiff and defendant No. l, it was agreed that defendant No. l would grant tenancy in favour of plaintiff in respect of the said flat for a period of five years with effect from 1st April, 2003 at a monthly rent of Rs. 12,000/- a month. (f) Subsequently, defendant No. 1 informed the plaintiff that he was advised that in formal document that would to be executed, the relation between the parties should be described as that of licensor and licensee and that the said document should reflect that such licence was granted for a period of less than one year with a renewal clause incorporated therein. (g) The defendant No. l, however, assured the plaintiff that the wrong description of the plaintiffs tenancy as a licence in the said agreement would not in any way affect its right as a tenant and he also undertook to enter into identical agreements year after year for five c