SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

The plaintiff in the earlier suit has, by operation of law, come to be entitled to the rights of Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd. CS No. 281 of 2005 was filed against the first defendant company and the person who was seemingly in control thereof for a declaration that the plaintiff as lessee of premises no. 14A, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Calcutta 700001, was entitled to run and administer its retail outlet thereat and a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching on the land or interfering with the plaintiff and its agents carrying on business thereat. On an application by it, the third defendant was added as a party to the suit since it claimed to be the lessor in respect of the suit premises. Such added defendant in the earlier suit is the plaintiff in the subsequent suit where the plaintiff in the earlier suit is the only defendant. Burmah Shell obtained a lease of the premises for a period of 10 years in the year 1957. Under a fresh agreement of April 30, 1968 Burmah Shell was granted a lease of the land measuring about four cottah with effect from October 1, 1967 for a period of 21 years. The document records, inter alia, that the lessee would use the premises “as a depot for storage and sale of Petroleum products, Motor Accessories etc and for all such purposes the lessee shall be of liberty to make excavations therein for tanks for the purpose of storage of Petroleum and … have right to lawfully erect thereon any building, pumping plant and accessories as may be requisite …” Clause 9 of the deed records that upon the “breach of any of the covenants or conditions by the Lessee … it shall be lawful for the Lessor to treat this demise as if an end and to determine the demise and to re-enter the demised premises …”

It appears to be the fairly admitted position that Burmah Shell constructed a sales room at the premises and appointed the first defendant in the earlier suit as a dealer thereat. The assets of Burmah Shell in India were taken over by the government of India pursuant to an Act of 1976 and the rights subsequently vested in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL). Sometime in the 1980s, the plaintiff in the later suit, Atindra Private Limited (Atindra), came to acquire the premises from the erstwhile owners and BPCL appears to have accepted Atindra as its landlord. After the Calcutta Thika and Other Tenancies and Lands (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 came into effect, petrol pumps in the city were thought to be covered by the statute. On an appeal arising out of an order passed on a petition under Article 226 of Constitution filed by BPCL, an order was made on December 13, 1988 that provided that the rents payable in respect of the premises till January, 1988 would be paid to advocates representing Atindra in such proceedings and the rents payable from February, 1988 would be paid to the Registrar, Original Side. It is not in dispute that BPCL has made payments in terms of such order and it continues to deposit the monthly rents with the Registrar.

In or about the year 2000 BPCL terminated the dealership of Howrah Motors whereupon the decision was challenged in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Such attempt, understandably, failed and the suit filed before the City Civil Court for the same purpose also came to naught. During the time that the notice of termination was sub judice, BPCL could not operate its retail outlet at the premises though it claims that it continued in juridical possession thereof. After Howrah Motors’ endeavour to continue the dealership arrangement failed to garner judicial support, BPCL dithered awhile before instituting CS No. 281 of 2005. On the maiden interlocutory application in its suit, BPCL obtained an order on March 28, 2006 which restrained the original defendants, their servants, agents and assigns from interfering with or obstructing the plaintiff from carrying on its business of sale of petr