Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.: 1. This first miscellaneous appeal was admitted for hearing on 29th September, 2016. Pursuant to the notice served upon the respondents, the respondents have entered appearance in this appeal through their learned advocate. When the application for interim injunction filed in connection with this appeal was taken up for hearing today, we are requested by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to dispose of the appeal itself on merit by dispensing with the requirement of filing paper books in this appeal. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that all relevant papers which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are annexed to the stay application. 2. Considering such submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have decided to hear out the appeal on merit. 3. This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order being No. 3 dated 14th September, 2016 passed by the Learned Judge, 10th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1167 of 2016 by which the plaintiff’s prayer for ad interim injunction was refused. 4. Let us now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the present case. 5. The plaintiff claimed that he was a Thika tenant under the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants in respect of the suit land. According to him, the suit land vested with the State under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981. He further claimed that he has become a direct tenant under the State and has been depositing rent in respect of the suit land with the said Thika Controller. He further claimed that he has been running a business in the suit property after obtaining trade licence from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. 6. Since the defendants are now trying to dispossess the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit to protect his possession in the suit property. 7. The learned Trial Judge rejected the plaintiff’s prayer for ad interim injunction by holding inter alia that the plaintiff has failed to make out any prima facie case for going for trial. 8. The learned Trial Judge further held that ad interim order of injunction cannot be passed at this stage without hearing the defendants. 7. The learned Trial Judge rejected the plaintiff’s prayer for ad interim injunction by holding inter alia that the plaintiff has failed to make out any prima facie case for going for trial. 8. The learned Trial Judge further held that ad interim order of injunction cannot be passed at this stage without hearing the defendants. The learned Trial Judge also held that the question of balance of convenience and inconvenience cannot be considered in this case. 9. We cannot agree with such findings of the learned Trial Judge as we find that the plaintiff has produced large number of documents showing his possession in the suit property. He has annexed the challan showing deposit of rent with the Thika Controller in respect of the suit land. He has been carrying on business in the suit property after obtaining trade licence from the Municipal Authority. His electricity connection was earlier disconnected. However, such connection was restored on the basis of an order passed by the Thika Controller in a proceeding in which the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants was also a party. In the said proceeding, the plaintiff was held to be a Thika tenant. 10. The learned advocate appearing for the defendants does not dispute the plaintiff’s contention that he is in possession of the suit property. Thus, possession of the plaintiff in the suit property is not disputed. The defendants however, claimed that they are the owners of the suit property and their interest in the suit property was not vested with the State under the Thika Controller Act. 11. Thus, in fact, we find that the dispute which may ultimately crop up in the injunction proceeding, may be a dispute relating to the title of the parties in the suit property. 12. The learned advocate appearing for the respondents also submits before us that his clients have not taken any step to evict the plaintiff on the suit property forcibly. 13. Since the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property is not disputed, we prima facie feel that such possession of the plaintiff should not be disturbed without due process of law. 14. 13. Since the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property is not disputed, we prima facie feel that such possession of the plaintiff should not be disturbed without due process of law. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, we set aside the impugned order and direct the parties to maintain status quo as regards their possession in the suit property and/or the nature and character thereof till the disposal of the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction. 15. Leave is granted to the defendants/respondents to file affidavit-in-opposition to the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction within two weeks from date, reply if any, be filed by the plaintiff/appellant within a week thereafter. 16. The learned Trial Judge is requested to make all endeavour to dispose of the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction by the end of January, 2017. 17. We make it clear that while disposing of the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction, the learned Trial Judge is free to decide the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction on its own merit after considering the pleadings of the respective parties and without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove which we have made only for the purpose of disposal of the plaintiff’s prayer for ad interim injunction. 18. Both the appeal and the application are thus, disposed of. 19. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the Learned advocates for the parties immediately.