The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury to obtain an order of injunction on a property not involved in the suit, belonging to the defendant.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - Two suits and two interim applications have been heard analogously as the issues in the two suits are same. In CS No. 145 of 2020 the claims revolve around 6,644 square feet of area while in CS No. 146 of 2020 the claims revolve around 6,541 square feet of area lying and situate on the third, fifth and sixth floor of premises No. 163, S.P. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata. The plaintiffs have money claims against the defendant in the two suits. The plaintiffs have applied for security for their claims, receiver and injunction.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, the plaintiffs are seeking an order of injunction in the interim petitions. He has submitted that the plaintiffs are giving up the other prayers made in the petitions.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, the plaintiff No. 1 is the owner of the demised premises. The plaintiff No. 1 had let out the demised premises to the defendant under the agreements dated January 10, 2018. He has submitted that, the defendant had agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 3,45,488/- to the plaintiff No. 1 in respect of 6,644 square feet in CS No. 145 of 2020. The defendant had agreed to pay Rs. 3,40,132/- for 6,541 square feet in CS No. 146 of 2020. He has submitted that, the agreements contain a lock in period. He has referred to the various clauses of the agreements. He has submitted that, the force majeure clause as the defendant is seeking to rely upon cannot be read in the manner as the defendant is seeking to do.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, the plaintiff No. 2 and the defendant entered into service agreement for Facilities, Amenities and Fit Outs on January 10, 2018 for the two areas taken on rent. Under such agreements, the plaintiff No. 2 had made fit out arrangements for the value of Rs. 94,65,740/- for 6,541 square feet in CS No. 146 of 2020. In CS No. 145 of 2020 the plaintiff No. 2 and the defendant therein had agreed to fit out arrangements for the value of Rs. 96,14,384/- for the 6,644 square feet which the defendant enjoyed . The defendant in CS No. 146 of 2020 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,46,024/- per month for the 6,541 square feet fit out arrangement. The defendant in CS No. 145 of 2020 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,48,317/- per month for the 6,644 square feet fit out arrangement as monthly rentals for the same.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the lease rentals as also the amounts under the fit out agreements from December 2019. The defendant had made over possession of the demised premises on October 5, 2020. He has submitted that, the defendant in CS No. 146 of 2020 is liable to pay the plaintiffs a sum of in excess of Rs. 1,12,52,093/- and the defendant in CS No. 145 of 2020 is liable to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 89,57,896/-.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has drawn the attention of the Court to the averments made in the petitions from paragraph 40 onwards. He has submitted that, unless the defendant is restrained from dealing with its assets, the defendant is likely to deal with the same in a manner so as to prejudice the plaintiffs in the execution of the eventual decree that may be passed in the two suits.

7. Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant has submitted that, the defendant terminated all the agreements on May 3, 2020. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that, there are two security deposits lying with the plaintiffs on account of the defendant. According to him, no amount is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs. He has referred to the various clauses of the two agreements. He has submitted that, by virtue of the force majeure clause in the agreements coupled with the fact that there are security deposits lying with the plaintiffs, the defendant is not liable