Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—By consent of the parties the appeal is heard on the informal papers being the complete set of the context as per the requirement.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 18th August, 2006 passed by the Court below dismissing the suit as well as rejecting the interim injunction application on the ground that the suit is not maintainable in view of the arbitration clause arising in the purported lease agreement executed by or between the parties on 27th December, 2005. The specific grievance of the plaintiff/appellant in the suit is that they were threatened by the representative/s of the respondents to remove from the occupation and in the appeal the specific grievance is that boards of the shop were removed in the night of 4-5th August, 2006, a notice of termination of occupancy right was issued to them on 5th August, 2006 and they have threatened from entering into the shop from such date.

3. Mr. B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeal, contended that the action on the part of the respondents is as good as “house grabbing”. He relied upon few judgments to sub