Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. 1. This appeal will be heard. 2. Lower court’s record need not be called for. 3. The plaintiffs/respondents are represented by their learned advocates. Hence, service of notice of appeal is dispensed with. 4. When we were considering the stay application filed by the appellants in connection with this appeal, we were invited by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to dispose of the appeal itself on merit. 5. We are informed that all relevant papers which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are annexed to the stay application. 6. Having regard to the fact that the necessary parties are now before us and the materials which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are also available, we have decided to dispose of the appeal itself on merit by dispensing with requirement of filing paper books in this appeal. 7. This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order being no. 2 dated 2nd November, 2016 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1423 of 2016. 8. By the impugned order, the defendants were restrained from disturbing and interfering with the plaintiffs’ right in the suit premises as specifically stated in annexure ‘A’ to the petition and from installing any gate or any other form of obstruction to the free ingress and egress of the vehicles into the front and rear open areas, demarcated by tin sheets as described in annexure ‘A’ for a period of three weeks. 9. Such ad-interim order of injunction was passed by the learned Trial Judge in a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed their tenancy right in respect of the ground floor as well as mezzanine floor of premises no. 10B, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700071. It is a vast property in the middle portion of which there is a building. There are open vacant spaces on either side of the building, i.e. in the front portion as well as in the rear portion of the building. Both the open spaces are surrounded by tin-sheet fencing having an opening through which vehicles can pass up to the open spaces. The premises no. 10B, Shakespeare Sarani is situated on Shakespeare Sarani. The main entrance of the said premises is on Shakespeare Sarani. Both the open spaces are surrounded by tin-sheet fencing having an opening through which vehicles can pass up to the open spaces. The premises no. 10B, Shakespeare Sarani is situated on Shakespeare Sarani. The main entrance of the said premises is on Shakespeare Sarani. There is a gate, fixed on the boundary wall abutting the main road through which the vehicles can enter the premises. The wide passage starting from the main entrance gate leading to the building is used for ingress and egress of the vehicle upto the building. The said passage runs by the side the tin sheet fenced, open spaces through which the vehicles can have access to the open spaces. 10. The plaintiff claimed their tenancy right in respect of the ground floor and the mezzanine floor of the main building which is standing in the middle part of the said premises. They claimed that they were inducted in the said premises as tenants by the erstwhile owner, namely, Nirmal Kumar Bandyopadhyay sometime, in the year 1984. According to the plaintiffs, their tenancy comprises of 16 rooms, 3 baths & privy, passage way, 1 lobby and 2 foyers on the ground floor and 14 rooms, 1 bath & privy 3 passage ways, 1 lobby on the mezzanine floor and the present rent of the said tenancy is Rs.2,500/- per month. 11. The original document creating such tenancy by the original landlord, namely, Nirmal Kumar Bandyopadhyay, has not been disclosed by the plaintiffs in any of their pleadings. To establish their claim for tenancy they have annexed one unsigned rent receipt allegedly issued by Receiver, appointed by the Court in a partition suit filed by a co-owners of the said property against his other co-owners in the original side of this Court. The rent receipt allegedly issued by the Receiver being annexure ‘C’ to the injunction application shows that a sum of Rs.1,90,775.50p. was paid to the learned Receiver on account of rent of the said premises for the period from 1984 upto 1999. It was recorded in the said receipt that the said rental dues of Rs.1,90,775.50p. was worked out by deducting a sum of Rs.47,425.50p., paid on account of corporation taxes from the total rental dues of Rs.2,38,200/-. was paid to the learned Receiver on account of rent of the said premises for the period from 1984 upto 1999. It was recorded in the said receipt that the said rental dues of Rs.1,90,775.50p. was worked out by deducting a sum of Rs.47,425.50p., paid on account of corporation taxes from the total rental dues of Rs.2,38,200/-. It is also recorded in the said receipt that apart from the ground floor, western side and mezzanine floor, open space and circulating area for parking of vehicles were included within is the tenancy of the plaintiff. Such a vast tenancy located in an important commercial area in the city was created only for a rental rate of Rs.1,000.00 per month. It is really unthinkable. 12. Though tenancy was created in 1984 but now payment was made till September 1999. All arrear rent starting from the commencement of tenancy was paid to the receiver for the first time in September 1999. 13. Some other rent receipts allegedly issued on behalf of the original landlord have also been annexed to the injunction application. Rent control challans showing deposit of rent for the month of August 2012 and also for the subsequent months have, also been annexed to the injunction application. The rent receipts which are annexed to the injunction application do not show that the open spaces on either side of the said building were either included as a part of the tenancy or were ever treated as an amenity annexed to the tenancy over which the plaintiffs’ right to park their cars was ever recognized by the landlord. 14. While describing the tenancy in the rent control challans the plaintiffs never claimed that the open spaces available on either side of the said building were either a part of their tenancy or any right of enjoyment was given to the plaintiffs thereon by way of an amenity annexed to their tenancy. The description of the tenancy which was mentioned in column no. 5(a) of rent control challans which runs as follows :- “In respect of ground floor of Western portion of premises No. 10B, Shakespear Sarani, Kolkata-700 071”. 15. The description of the tenancy which was mentioned in column no. 5(a) of rent control challans which runs as follows :- “In respect of ground floor of Western portion of premises No. 10B, Shakespear Sarani, Kolkata-700 071”. 15. In order to establish their right of parking their cars on the disputed open spaces on either side of the building within the tin sheet fencing, the plaintiffs have relied upon the minutes of the meeting dated 2nd December, 2012 wherein it was recorded that “status quo existing on 1st December, 2012 will be maintained in 10B, Shakespeare Sarani and neither Rajendra Sethia (RKS) will put up gates, nor Narendra Sethia (NKS) will disturb the current tin boundary”. It was also recorded in the said minutes that parking right will also be ensured in the existing structure. 16. The rent receipt issued by the advocate-commissioner being annexure-C and the minutes of the meeting dated 2nd December, 2012 are the two documents which are relied upon by the plaintiffs to establish their right of parking their cars on the vacant spaces available on either side of the said building which are bounded by tin sheet fencing. According to the plaintiffs, there are openings on the tin sheet fencing connected with the passage through which cars can be taken in and taken out within the said premises. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants are now trying to install iron gate on the openings of the tin sheet fencing, so that the plaintiffs cannot take in and/or take out and/or park their vehicles within the open spaces surrounded by tin sheet fencing. 17. Let us now consider as to how far the plaintiffs have been able to make out a prima facie case to go for trial. 18. No doubt, the plaintiffs have prima facie established their tenancy right in respect of ground floor of Western portion of premises No. 10B, Shakespear Sarani, Kolkata-700 071. Description of that tenancy is mentioned in all the documents which are annexed by the plaintiffs to their pleadings. However, the plaintiffs’ right of parking their cars over the open space available on either side of the building as a part of their tenancy or as an amenity annexed to the said tenancy, is doubtful. 19. The receipt which was allegedly issued by the Receiver being annexure-C to the injunction application is an unsigned document. However, the plaintiffs’ right of parking their cars over the open space available on either side of the building as a part of their tenancy or as an amenity annexed to the said tenancy, is doubtful. 19. The receipt which was allegedly issued by the Receiver being annexure-C to the injunction application is an unsigned document. As such, no reliance can be placed on the said document for ascertaining the extent of tenancy and/or any other right which is annexed to the tenancy. 20. Admittedly the rent receipt allegedly issued by the receiver is not the basic document creating such tenancy. Neither any agreement between the landlord and tenant creating such tenancy nor any rent receipt issued by the inducting landlord is forthcoming before this Court wherefrom the Court can ascertain the extent of tenancy of the plaintiffs. 21. The other documents i.e., the rent receipts allegedly issued on behalf of the successors of the inducting landlord and the rent control challan which were annexed to the plaintiffs’ pleadings, do not disclose that the open spaces available on either side of the said building were either treated as a part of the plaintiffs’ tenancy or any right was given to the tenant by way an amenity annexed to their tenancy. 22. The description of tenancy which the tenants themselves mentioned in the rent control challans while depositing rent of their tenancy, has been set out hereabove, wherefrom it appears that the plaintiffs never mentioned that the open spaces available on either side of the said building was included in their tenancy or the tenants were ever allowed to enjoy any right of parking their cars therein as an amenity annexed to their tenancy. 23. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are taking steps to install iron gates on the openings on the tin sheet fencing to obstruct the movement of the plaintiffs’ vehicles so that the plaintiffs cannot park their cars on the open space available on either side of the said building which is fenced by tin-sheet. 24. 23. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are taking steps to install iron gates on the openings on the tin sheet fencing to obstruct the movement of the plaintiffs’ vehicles so that the plaintiffs cannot park their cars on the open space available on either side of the said building which is fenced by tin-sheet. 24. After taking into consideration of the rent receipts allegedly granted on behalf of heirs of the erstwhile landlords and the rent control challan, we are of the prima facie view that the disputed open spaces were never included within the plaintiff’s tenancy and no right of parking their cars on the disputed open spaces was ever granted to the plaintiffs as an amenity annexed to their tenancy. 25. The minutes of the meeting dated 2nd December, 2012 is the only document which is relied upon by the plaintiffs to establish their right of parking cars on the disputed open space. The said minutes of the meeting does not show that such meeting was held between the landlord and the tenant to resolve any dispute between the landlord and the tenant. That meeting was held to resolve some family disputes amongst the members of the Sethia family one of whom viz., Dr. Narendra Sethia happens to be a tenant of the said premises. Though we find from the plaint as well as the injunction application that the defendant nos. 5, 6 and 7 have purchased some share in the said premises and the plaintiff no.1 is a Director of the defendant no.7/company, but the minutes of the meeting does not show that the said meeting was held to resolve any dispute between the landlord and tenant. 26. As such, we are of the prima facie view that the settlement which was arrived at by the members of the Sethia family as recorded in the minutes of the meeting dated 2nd December, 2012 cannot be held to be a primary document to establish the plaintiffs’ right of the parking their cars over the open spaces lying on either side of the said premises. As such, we hold that the ad interim injunction which is sought for restraining the defendants from installing any gate on the openings of the disputed open spaces bounded by tin sheet fencing cannot be granted. 27. As such, we hold that the ad interim injunction which is sought for restraining the defendants from installing any gate on the openings of the disputed open spaces bounded by tin sheet fencing cannot be granted. 27. We, however, make it clear that the defendants should not create any obstruction by fixing any gate or otherwise on the passage starting from the main gate up to the plaintiffs’ tenancy for obstructing the plaintiffs’ free access to their tenancy in the ground floor of Western portion of premises No. 10B, Shakespear Sarani, Kolkata-700 071. 28. We, thus, modify the impugned order and restrain the defendants from fixing any iron gate on any portion of the passage i.e. driver way starting from the main gate up to the entrance in the plaintiffs’ tenancy and/or from creating any obstruction in the use and enjoyment of their tenancy in the ground floor of Western portion of premises No. 10B, Shakespear Sarani, Kolkata-700 071 till the disposal of the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction. 29. Leave is granted to the defendants to file affidavit-in-opposition to the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction within three weeks from date; reply, if any, be filed by the plaintiffs within a week thereafter. We request the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction as early as possible, preferably by the end of January 2017. 30. It is made clear that the observations which are made by us hereinabove are all prima facie and tentative observations made by this Court only for the purpose of disposal of this appeal arising out of the ad interim order of injunction passed by the learned Trial Judge. As such, the learned Trial Judge while deciding the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction is absolutely free to decide the same on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observation made hereinabove. We however make it clear that alteration, if any made by altering the present status quo by installing any gate on the tin sheet fenced boundary will ultimately abide by the result of the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction. . 31. Both the appeal and the application filed in connection therewith are, thus, disposed of. 32. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.