M. N. Roy, J.: This appeal from original order is directed against an order dated 9th July 1982, passed by Order No. 101 dated 9tn July 1982, passed in Title Suit No. 1462 of 1979 by Shri B. G. Chakraborty, learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, was presented on 16th August 1982.

2. On or about 8th August 1979, the plaintiff/respondent am Prakash Jaluka, presented the concerned Title Suit No. 1462 of 1979 before the 12th Bench of the City Civil Court. Calcutta against the defendant/appellant M/s Kakod Sales Agency for declaration that the defendants had no right, title and interest to make any additions and alterations and/or constructions inside their tenancy at premises No. 19. R. N. Mukherjee Road, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises), and also prayed for permanent injunction restraining them, their men and agents from making any alterations and additions and/or making any construction and/or causing any damages within their tenancy at the said premises. Admittedly, the plaintiff was and still is the landlord of a portion of the said premises and it has been alleged that the defendants were inducted as a tenant by him, in respect of one godown on the eastern budding on the ground floor of the said premises find they were holding the concerned tenancy under the plaintiff at a monthly rental of Rs. 1,000/- payable according to English calendar month.

3. It has further been alleged that on the evening of 4th August 1979, the defendant brought men, mistries, masons and cement, bricks, stone-chip and other building materials and started illegal construction within their tenancy and thereby they had caused damages to the load bearing walls and also on the partition walls and have made big holes for the purpose of fixing iron joints, so as to construct a mezzanine floor within their tenancy. Such work has been claimed to have commenced without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. It has further been stated that on detecting the above, the plaintiff's employees rushed to the defendants' godown and asked them to stop such illegal work and construction and on that, their men and darwans threatened those employees of the plaintiff with dire consequences and since there was apprehension of breach of peace, they at that time, took no steps.

4. The plaintiff has further stated that the defendants have no right, title or interest to make any constructions, additions and alterations and/or cause any damages to the tenancy in question. In fact, it has also been alleged that the defendants have already broken a portion of the load bearing wall within their premises as mentioned above and it was also claimed that there was every likelihood that the building may collapse and in that event, there would be imminent danger to human life and property. Such act or actions of the defendants were claimed by the plaintiff to be absolutely illegal.

5. On the next day of the filing of the suit i.e. on 9th August, 1979, the plaintiff had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in the circumstances as indicated hereinbefore and also for the danger as mentioned above, prayed for an order asking the defendants to show cause as to why, they, their men and agents should not be restrained by an order of temporary injunction from making any additions and alterations and/or making any constructions and/or causing any damages to the said tenancy at the said premises, till the disposal of the suit. An ad interim order in terms of the above was also asked for. It would appear that on that date, by Order No. 3, the learned Judge of the Court below, after pursuing the petition, affidavit and other relevant papers directed the issue of a notice upon the defendants to show cause within seven days of service thereto as to why the plaintiff's prayer as mentioned above, for interim injunction, should not be allowed and it has been recorded by the learned Judge that in view