Judgment : Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the defendant no.3 and is directed against the judgment and order dated May 15, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No.80 of 2013 thereby reversing the order dated February 18, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 5th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.1572 of 2011. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.1572 of 2011 against the petitioner and other defendants before the learned Trial Judge for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant nos.1, 2 & 3 from handing over possession and changing rent bill and from taking possession or making any renovation and from changing the nature and character of the suit property at premises no.163, Diamond Harbour Road, P.S. Behala, Kolkata – 700034 and other consequential reliefs. The defendant no.3 is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations contained in the plaint. The plaintiff/opposite party herein filed an application for temporary injunction and that application was rejected on contests. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.80 of 2013 which was allowed by the impugned judgment and order thereby reversing the order passed by the learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved, the defendant no.3 has preferred this application. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that admittedly one Mathura Roy, since deceased, was a tenant in respect of the premises in suit at a rental of Rs.70/- per month payable according to English calendar month. Admittedly, Mathura Roy died on October 22, 2012 and he ran a business at the suit premises during his lifetime. It is contended by the plaintiff that during the last part of his life, Mathura Roy was not able to run the said business properly and the plaintiff/opposite party herein being the daughter of Mathura Roy, since deceased, started business at the suit premises and upon request by Mathura Roy, the tenancy was made in the name of the plaintiff, daughter of Mathura Roy. Thereafter, she has filed the suit for the reliefs already stated. Thereafter, she has filed the suit for the reliefs already stated. On the other hand, the defendant no.3 has contended that Mathura Roy died on October 22, 2012 but during his lifetime on April 12, 2000, he surrendered his tenancy before the landlord in writing with a request to admit his youngest son, Sanju Roy, defendant no.1 as a new tenant in the said room and the landlord accepted the request of the tenant and then he inducted the defendant no.1 as a new tenant in the premises in suit, a shop room. Sanju Roy was running the said business. He surrendered the tenancy of the said shop room on April 15, 2011 in favour of the defendant no.2. It may be noted herein that the opposite party no.2 and 4 to 8 are also the sons of Mathura Roy. While dealing with the application, the learned Trial Judge has recorded that the plaintiff has failed to show prima facie case to go for trial as she has not filed any paper to the effect that her father had transferred the tenancy right in her favour with the consent of the other defendants or the landlord. Even, no document such as trade license has been filed by the plaintiff. Under the circumstances, the observation of the 1st Appellate Court to the effect that the plaintiff/appellant herein is in possession of the suit property cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the brothers of the plaintiff have filed documents that on April 12, 2000 Mathura Roy surrendered his tenancy and the said tenancy was created in favour of Sanju Roy, the youngest son of Mathura Roy vide Annexures A & B to the application. So, these two papers are in favour of the defendants i.e. the brothers of the plaintiff that they are in possession of the suit property. Thus, from the materials on record, I find that the findings of the learned 1st Appellate Court suffers from perversity in respect of the prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and in this respect, in my view, the learned Trial Judge has rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to show the prima facie case to go for trial. If the defendants are in possession on the basis of Annexures A & B and if they are restrained from using the suit premises, certainly the suit premises being a shop room for running the business, they would suffer irreparable loss. The balance of convenience in granting injunction is not also in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be supported. Accordingly, it is held that the judgment and order of the 1st Appellate Court should be set aside and the order of the learned Trial Judge should be sustained. The application succeeds and is, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is hereby set aside and the order passed by the learned Trial Judge in respect of the injunction matter is hereby affirmed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking. later:- After delivery of the judgment, the learned Advocate for the petitioner prays for stay of the operation of the impugned judgment for a period of three months. Upon due consideration of the materials on record and the above findings, I am of the view that such prayer cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the prayer for stay to the above judgment is hereby refused.