IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE FMAT 76 of 2025 +

IA NO. CAN/1/2025 ATC India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.

Frostees Export India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Before: The Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee &

The Hon’ble Justice Om Narayan Rai For the Appellant Mr. Probal Mukherjee, Adv.

Mr. Arnab Roy, Adv.

Mr. Satyam Mukherjee, Adv.

Ms. Sayani Ahmed, Adv.

For the Respondents Mr. Joydeep Kar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Adv.

Mr. Sachetan Ghosh, Adv.

Mr. I. Munshi, Adv.

For Orders 2 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 25 Arijit Banerjee, J. :

1. By consent of the parties, the appeal and the connected application are taken up together for hearing.

2. Being aggrieved by an order dated February 05, 2025, passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court at Rajarhat, North 24 Parganas, on an application of the respondent no. 1 herein in a suit filed by it being TS(COM) - 93/2024, the defendant no. 1 in the suit has come up by way of this appeal.

3. The appellant was a lessee in respect of the suit premises under the respondent no. 1 herein. A lease deed had been executed in the year 2016.

4. It appears that subsequently the lease expired by efflux of time and the appellant continued to be in possession of the suit premises under an agreement described as one for “Leave and Licence” executed on January

01, 2023 by and between the parties.

5. The agreement stated that the appellant herein (described as licensee) was granted permission by the licensor being the respondent no. 1 herein, to occupy the suit premises for 6 months starting on January 01, 2023 and ending on June 30, 2023. It was further stipulated in the agreement that the licensee shall pay license fee of Rs. 3,25,500/- and monthly maintenance charge of Rs. 4,49,500/- to the licensor in advance within the

7th day of each English calendar month.

6. It may be mentioned here that during the subsistence of the lease, an agreement had been executed by and between the appellant and the respondent no. 1 herein, on August 25, 2016, for maintenance of the suit premises which was being and still is being used for commercial purpose of running a motorcycle showroom. The said agreement was coterminous with the lease agreement. Although the maintenance agreement was not formally renewed or no fresh maintenance agreement was executed by and between the parties when the license agreement was executed, it is obvious from the conduct of the parties that they proceeded on the basis that the maintenance agreement was still operative. Under the maintenance agreement, the landlord (respondent no.1) was obliged to maintain properly the premises/infrastructure and all the fittings in the manner it had been handed over as per the licensee’s satisfaction. It was also provided that the landlord was responsible for “any repairing and whitewashing on the front portion of the said building”.

7. The respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid suit against the appellant herein on or about April 16, 2024, for recovery of possession of the suit premises and money decree to the tune of Rs. 64,05,100/- on account of alleged outstanding occupational charge for the period September 01, 2023 till March 31, 2024. A claim for damages assessed at Rs. 1 crore tentatively is also there in the plaint.

8. On an injunction application moved by the respondent no.1/ plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 10 of CPC read with section 151 thereof, initially an ad-interim order of injunction was passed restraining the defendant no. 1 in the suit (present appellant) and/or its representatives from dealing with, transferring, alienating, encumbering, subleasing, letting out, causing any damage to or creating any third party right in respect of the suit premises till disposal of the suit. By the order impugned in this appeal, the learned Judge confirmed the ad interim order of injunction and further directed as follows:-

“The Defendant/Respondent is directed under Order 39 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC, to pay the maintenance charges and o