The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the right of a person in possession of an immovable property to continue to remain in possession unless dispossessed in due course of law, as provided under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

Soumen Sen, J.

1. Both the applications are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. The plaintiff has filed an application being G.A. no.3181 of 2017 praying inter alia for a mandatory direction upon the respondents to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the property described in scheduled, A to the plaint.

3. The defendant has filed an application in G.A. no. 3529 of 2017 for rejection of the plaint.

4. In order to decide both the applications it is necessary to narrate the facts pleaded by the plaintiff in the suit.

5. The plaintiff claims to be in exclusive possession of unit no.3, 4 and 5 on the first and ground floor of premises situated at Azimganj House, 7 Camac Street, Kolkata-700 017 (hereinafter referred to as “the said property”) at a monthly rent of Rs.3,36,755/- under four several agreements.

6. The plaintiff was previously known as ABN Amro Bank NV. Subsequently, in or around 2000, the plaintiff had acquired ABN Amro Bank NV globally together with all their rights and obligations out of which the possession of ABN Amro Bank NV in the said property became transferred, to Royal Bank of Scotland NV.

7. Subsequently, Royal Bank of Scotland NV became Royal Bank of Scotland PLC in 2017 and all rights of Royal Bank of Scotland NV stood transferred by way of a scheme of arrangement in favour of Royal Bank of Scotland PLC.

8. The plaintiff claims that by a letter of 27th October, 2016 the plaintiff made a conditional offer of terminating the aforesaid monthly tenancy under Clause 6.24 of the Agreement of 12th February, 2004, with effect from 30th April, 2017, in compliance of the six months’ notice period subject to compliance of various obligations cast on the respondents, inter alia, include the refund of various deposits for security and otherwise, held by the respondents under the four several agreements.

9. In the said letter the plaintiff claims that a sum of Rs.5,31,67,098.30 is payable by the defendant to the plaintiff upon adjustment of all rents, car parking charges and terrace usage charges from the security deposit as held by the defendant upon the plaintiff surrendering the tenancy. The defendants, however, by a letter dated 17th February, 2017 did not accept the validity of the termination notice and also did not agree to refund the security deposits of the plaintiff.

10. The plaintiff, in contemplation of an earlier termination of tenancy by a letter dated 4th August, 2017, intimated the defendant that it would vacate the premises on or about 12th September, 2017 upon repayment of the security deposit by defendants without any adjustment or setoff. The plaintiff alleged that prior permission was sought for by the defendants to enter into the said property solely for the purpose of dismantling and removing the fixtures and fittings installed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff had agreed to bear the expenses thereof, on the representation of the defendants, being the landlord, that they would take full care to ensure that neither the said property nor the furniture, fixtures and fittings were damaged in any manner and the possession will thereafter be parted upon refund of the security deposit.

11. The plaintiff claims to have allowed the defendants to have access to the said property relying upon the said representations and in good faith only for the purpose of dismantling and removal of the furniture, fixtures and fittings. The plaintiff refers to letters dated 4th August 2017, 9th August 2017, 14th August 2017 and contends that an agreement was reached by and between the parties that only upon refund of the security deposit, possession of the property would be parted with by the plaintiff. However, during the pendency of such discussion and to the utter dismay and shock of the plaintiff, on 5th September, 2017 when the authorized personnel of the plaintiff, Mr. Anik Majumdar wanted to lock up the said premises between 6.30 p.m and 7.00 p.m, he was shocked and surprised to note tha