JUDGMENT : Shivakant Prasad, J. This is a suit for a decree for Rs. 12,00,000/-; enquiry into further loss and damage suffered by the plaintiffs, mandatory and perpetual injunction and other reliefs. 2. Plaintiffs are the absolute owner of premises situate at 95A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta-700 073 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). The said premises consists of a three storied building and comprises of an area of one bigha four cottahs of land. 3. Prior to 1992 a portion of the said building comprising of 11 rooms on the first floor and 11 rooms on the second floor including two kitchen rooms on the top floor of the said premises (hereinafter referred to as the said tenanted portion) was let out by the plaintiff B. Mazumdar Samajpati at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,610/-. 4. At the request of the said B. Mazumdar Samajpati on the terms and conditions contained in a letter dated 18th November, 1992, the tenancy in respect of the tenanted portion was transferred by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant herein with effect from December, 1992 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,619/- payable according to English Calendar month. 5. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant has without obtaining consent of the landlord or the Municipal Authorities covered the open verandah in the first floor of the premises and made the passage thereat narrow and also installed and fixed a huge sign board and hoarding at the outer side wall of the premises overlooking the main road and also made temporary construction on the left hand side of the top floor/roof by converting the two kitchen rooms into permanent structure without obtaining consent of the Municipal Corporation or the landlord plaintiffs. 6. Further contention of the plaintiffs is that on 27th September, 2005 pursuant to negotiation between the plaintiffs and one Mr. Arvind Jhunjhunwalla for the purpose of opening an Airtel franchisee shop in a portion of the ground floor of the premises comprising of approximately 150 sq. ft. Plaintiffs along with the representative of Mr. 6. Further contention of the plaintiffs is that on 27th September, 2005 pursuant to negotiation between the plaintiffs and one Mr. Arvind Jhunjhunwalla for the purpose of opening an Airtel franchisee shop in a portion of the ground floor of the premises comprising of approximately 150 sq. ft. Plaintiffs along with the representative of Mr. Arvind Jhunjhunwalla held physical inspection of the premises on 3rd October, 2005 and found that a new gate had been installed at the premises by removing the old collapsible gate and the defendant was unlawfully occupying the entire ground floor of the said premises carrying on business thereat and also found illegal construction made on the roof top and at the entire premises. 7. Hence, the plaintiffs have claimed vacant possession of the trespassed portion, mesne profits, damages at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- for diem from three years prior to filling of the suit till delivery of possession can be had by the plaintiffs i.e. for Rs. 12,00,000/- and also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its servants agents or assigns from interfering with the free ingress and egress of the plaintiffs and/or their men, servants and assigns to the said premises. 8. Hence the suit. 9. The defendants have contested the suit by filing a written statement denying all material particulars made in the plaint and contended inter alia, that the defendants are the tenants in respect of the suit premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 1,619/- payable according to English Calendar Month. The directors and shareholders of the defendants company are descendants of Bijoylal Mazumdar Samajpati who was the original tenant in respect of the central portion of the building with ground floor passage leading to a staircase thereof, the first and second floors and the corresponding portion of the terrace with two rooms and one kitchen thereon as per the terms and conditions recorded in the letter dated March 6, 1940 issued by Mugneeram Bangur & Co. to late Bijoylal Mazumdar. The central portion of the building under the tenancy of the defendants is independent unit with exclusive separate entrance and staircase right from the ground floor to roof top. 10. to late Bijoylal Mazumdar. The central portion of the building under the tenancy of the defendants is independent unit with exclusive separate entrance and staircase right from the ground floor to roof top. 10. The defendants' specific contention is that due to extensive and massive underground construction works that were carried on along Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata by the Metro Rail authorities for setting up of the Metro Railway, tenanted portion was severely damaged causing severe imbalance in the structural stability of the building. The situation became so serious that the defendant company had to take up the matter with all the authorities of Metro Railways, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, the Police and the landlord for taking immediate necessary steps for repairing and taking care of the severe damage and as per the permission granted by the plaintiffs/landlord, the renovation, reconstruction, alteration etc. were undertaken by the defendants. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendants without the lawful consent of the landlord raised construction on the tenanted premises. The defendants thus, prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. 11. On the above pleadings, following issues are framed for determination of the disputes between the parties: (1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (2) Is there any cause of action against the defendant? (3) Is the suit barred by limitation? (4) Did the defendant trespass into any portion of the premises in question being premises No. 95A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta? (5) Did the defendant construct any unauthorized structure over any portion of the said premises being premises No. 95A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta, without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff or the predecessors in office of the plaintiff? (6) Is the plaintiff entitled to the decree as prayed for? (7) To what other relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? Decision with reasons Issue Nos. 4 and 5 : 12. Both the issues are inter linked and are taken up together for the sake of convenience in discussion and for brevity. 13. (6) Is the plaintiff entitled to the decree as prayed for? (7) To what other relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? Decision with reasons Issue Nos. 4 and 5 : 12. Both the issues are inter linked and are taken up together for the sake of convenience in discussion and for brevity. 13. Admittedly, the defendant is a tenant at the premises No. 95A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta-700 073 which consists of a three storied building comprising of an area of 01 bigha 04 cottahs of land and the building comprising of 11 rooms on the first floor and second floor each including two kitchen rooms on the top floor which was let out by one B. Mazumdar Samajpati prior to 1992, the tenancy was transferred to the present defendant as per the request made by letter dated 18th November, 1992. 14. Plaintiffs' allegations is that new gate was installed at the premises by removing the old collapsible gate on the ground floor by the defendants and that entire ground floor of the premises was in unlawful occupation of the defendants as the defendants converted the ground floor comprising of an area 390 sq. ft. for personal use whereas the same was never let out by the plaintiffs under the tenancy agreement. The gate was only entrance to the ground floor for ingress and egress to the top floor of the premises. 15. It is also submitted by Mr. Molay Kr. Ghosh, learned Sr. Advocate for the plaintiffs that defendant has unauthorizely caused damage to the entire first floor premises by demolishing the partition wall and made temporary construction on the left hand side of the top floor roof of the premises without obtaining consent of the landlord/plaintiffs or the permission from the statutory authority. 16. Molay Kr. Ghosh, learned Sr. Advocate for the plaintiffs that defendant has unauthorizely caused damage to the entire first floor premises by demolishing the partition wall and made temporary construction on the left hand side of the top floor roof of the premises without obtaining consent of the landlord/plaintiffs or the permission from the statutory authority. 16. It would appear from the tenancy agreement dated 18th November, 1992 Exbt.-3 and letter dated 28th December, 1992 of the defendants Exbt.-4 addressed to Gouri Devi Trust that extent of the tenancy of the original defendant tenant "B. Mazumdar alias B. Mazumdar Samajpati" covers "The central middle portion of the premises at 95A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta-700 073 (1st and 2nd floor together with the terrace and ground room leading to the stairs)" as per the letter of the plaintiffs dated 6th March, 1940 which was issued under the signature of late Mugneeram Bangur and that central portion of the building including top floor having no access to any third party being the old age tenancy of Mr. B. Mazumdar which was transferred to the present defendant M/s. B. Mazumdar Samajpati & Sons Hotels Private Limited. Thus, there was creation of a new tenancy in favour of the defendants company at the behest and request of Mr. B. Mazumdar himself who happened to be the Chairman of the said Private Limited Company formed and promoted by him for the purpose of boarding and lodging/hotel business in the trade name "Hotel Avenue Club." 17. There is no dispute as to the present creation of tenancy by way of transfer to the defendants company by the owner landlord. This also finds corroboration by the plaintiffs/landlord vide reply to Exbt.-4 being letter dated 24.12.1992 confirming the tenancy at 95A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta-700 073 with the area of possession and right of access including 1st and 2nd floor and the top floor i.e. roof top with two rooms and one kitchen thereon including entrance on the ground floor and passage thereon leading to the stairs exactly in line with the possession and right of access of Mr. B. Mazumdar. This letter of confirmation has been adduced in evidence as Exbt.-6 and as such, there is no dispute as to the transfer of the tenancy in respect of the schedule premises in favour of the defendants. 18. Mr. Molay Kr. B. Mazumdar. This letter of confirmation has been adduced in evidence as Exbt.-6 and as such, there is no dispute as to the transfer of the tenancy in respect of the schedule premises in favour of the defendants. 18. Mr. Molay Kr. Ghosh has further submitted that defendant is in unlawful occupation of 390 sq. ft. area on the ground floor for personal use as the defendant was not given exclusive right on the ground floor whereas Mr. Swarendu Ghosh, learned Advocate for the defendants by inviting my attention to paragraph 4(a) of the written statement submitted that the extent of tenancy is the entire central portion of the building with ground floor passage of the said premises leading to the staircase thereof as described in the schedule to the plaint and there cannot be any dispute as to the tenancy in the suit premises granted in favour of the defendants. 19. Mr. Molay Kr. Ghosh contended that the letter dated 6th March, 1940 Exbt.-1 is the sheet anchor of defence together with the letter of the plaintiffs to defendants dated 11.5.1981 Exbts.-24 and 25 and so also the rent receipt for June, 1981 Exbt.-5 which means the extent of tenancy on the 1st and 2nd floor consisting of 11 rooms on each floor and 2 kitchen rooms on the top floor. The Exbt.-5, rent receipt for May, 1978 rent @ Rs. 324/- also mentioned the extent of tenancy. Mr. M. Ghosh further pointed out that without the prior and unlawful consent of the plaintiffs, the defendants have raised construction on the roof top by inviting my attention to the sketch map annexed to the Engineer Commissioner's report Exbt.-26. Now, this court has to ascertain on evidence as to whether construction modification, alteration at the suit premises was undertaken by the defendants with the consent or without consent of the landlord/plaintiffs. 20. Admittedly, the tenancy was created by virtue of a letter dated 6th March, 1940 in favour of B. Mazumdar of 95A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta-700 073 by Mugneeram Bangur, plaintiff/landlord which provides that tenancy of the central portion of the said premises consisted on 1st and 2nd floor together with the terrace and ground room leading to the staircase which are in possession of the defendant. This letter provides that tenancy was determined subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein such as point no. This letter provides that tenancy was determined subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein such as point no. 4 meaning that some rooms would be constructed on the back portion of the house and a kitchen would be provided on the terrace, fulfilling the terms and conditions, the defendants could enjoy the tenancy at the rent of Rs. 325/- per month. Extent of tenancy as shown vide letter dated 11.5.1981 Exbt.-24 reflects 11 rooms on 1st and 2nd floor each, 2 kitchen at the top floor meaning a total of 24 rooms let out to the original defendant B. Mazumdar at a rental of Rs. 324/- per month. This tenancy was received with note of B. Mazumdar on 11.5.1981 to the effect that possession of total 24 rooms including 10 rooms in each of 1st & 2nd floor and 4 rooms on the top floor which was clarified thereafter vide Exbt.-25 being the letter dated 23.6.1981 of 'Gouri Devi Trust' explaining that wooden and iron net construction on top floor will not be treated as a room because it is not a 'pucca' construction. 21. It also reflects from the letter of Mr. B. Mazumdar, the original defendant dated 11th November, 1992 addressed to the Gouri Devi Trust Exbt.-2 that the extent of tenancy consisted of 11 rooms on the 1st floor and 11 rooms on the 2nd floor and 2 kitchens on the top floor as per the rent receipts whereby the original defendant expressed his intention to convert his proprietorship business into a Private Limited Company under the name and style "M/s. B. Mazumdar Samajpati & Sons Hotels Private Limited" and thereby requested the landlord/plaintiffs to give consent to the change of the tenancy in the name of defendant Co. which I have already discussed above that the said transfer of tenancy was accepted and confirmed by plaintiffs/landlord vide letter dated 24.12.1992 Exbt.-6. 22. which I have already discussed above that the said transfer of tenancy was accepted and confirmed by plaintiffs/landlord vide letter dated 24.12.1992 Exbt.-6. 22. It would reflect from a letter dated 15.5.1993 Exbt.-15 addressed to the Manager, Gouri Devi Trust by B. Mazumdar Samajpati & Sons Hotels Private Limited that the defendants sought for permission from the plaintiffs/landlord for extensive and intensive repairs, replacements and reconstructions of the building severally and dangerously damaged due to depression of the front side of the building to the extent of 3 to 4 inches at least, causing serious problem of the basic balance/label of the building giving rise to major cracks throughout the building from top to bottom initiating damages in almost all the rooms, roof top, bathroom, toilets and basic sewerage system following the ongoing underground massive constructional work of the Metro Railway. 23. As urgent works involved on the basis of the reports submitted by Civil Engineer, Plumbers as well as Electrical Engineer, the defendants incorporated as many as 18 points detailing works to be done in the said letter of permission appending the points as under- (i) the entire terrace/roof top severely cracked resulting in wide range of seepage of water causing severe damages to all the rooms as well as entire walls of the building warrants immediate repairs of the entire roof top. (ii) All walls throughout the building needs to be repaired and plastered. (iii) Due to heavy depression and loss of basic balance of building. Particularly 03 rooms on the 1st floor marked by us as room nos. 105, 106 and 107 are all very badly and severally damaged with all floors cracked and walls and floors as a result all the 03 rooms are virtually not usable unless floors are reconstructed and damaged walls are removed to reduce the weight on the floors. Accordingly while we will have to reconstruct the floor, we will have to remove the damaged walls and, as a result the space covering the 3 rooms will look like a big room (approx. 10ft. x 27 ft.) which, we will have to reluctantly use for other purpose may be like small get together or meeting etc. and cannot use as "Living room" which is in fact a losing proposition to us, since room charges for total 3 rooms are more than the charge of a big room. 10ft. x 27 ft.) which, we will have to reluctantly use for other purpose may be like small get together or meeting etc. and cannot use as "Living room" which is in fact a losing proposition to us, since room charges for total 3 rooms are more than the charge of a big room. (iv) Heavy duty still angles/bars to be installed in all the rooms of the front side of the building to ensure protection against heavy cracks damages developed in the wall due to depression. (v) Heavy duty still angels/bars are to be installed in the front gate portion on the ground floor to take care severe cracks damages developed due to depression. (vi) The main entrance gate to be repaired a rearranged fro the purpose use, since the gate is not operate-able following repairing and remarking. (vii) Underground water reservoir has become unable due to severe crack and damages due to depression and warrants complete repairing and remaking. (viii) Toilets and bath rooms have become unusable due to severe cracks and dis-balance of the floor following the depression and are required to be repaired thoroughly. (ix) In all rooms on the front side of the buildings, aluminium frame glass windows to be installed with locking system in order to ensure securities. (x) The existing three bathroom and four toilets are quiet insufficient the use of 40 to 50 inmates who are required to check out right in morning within 9.00 A.M. Therefore, we seek your kind permission to convert all rooms with attached bath which will reduce the sufferings of the inmates. (xi) Roof top reservoir is required to be repaired and redone fully due to cracks developed. (xii) At least two toilets and two bath rooms to be constructed on the roof top, otherwise it is not convenient for the people on the roof top to use the common provisions on the first floor. (xiii) Existing kitchen on the roof top is divided by a 3" thin partly partitioned wall in to 2 separate portion to look like 2 rooms, one big for kitchen purpose one small for storage purpose and kindly note the 3" thin wall have been also heavily damaged due to cracks developed and therefore, needs to be removed in which case kitchen will look one big kitchen. (xiv) A roof top disc. (xiv) A roof top disc. antenna is to be installed for the T.V. to ensure right reception in the interest of the quests. (xv) The basic sewerage system has been badly damaged due to the depression and existing entire pipe lines system is required to be replaced with high quality still pipe throughout the building. (xvi) Installation of fire fighting equipments which is very essential and urgent as per rule of the fire brigade. (xvii) Historically ole Electric lines are all damaged and no serviceable at all. The entire existing electrical wiring's is to be replaced with latest high quality concealed copper wiring with H.C.B. along with latest complete control panel board in order to take protection against possible fire. (xviii) Due to heavy pollutions of dusts and heavy sound pollution for heavy traffic movements on Chittaranjan Avenue, it has become absolutely essential to install A.C. Machine in all the rooms to ensure healthy atmosphere inside the building for all inmates specially the quest. 24. In response thereto the plaintiffs by a letter dated 26.5.1993 Exbt.-16 accepted and accorded to the proposal of the defendants for emergency repairing/replacement/reconstructions to take care of the building and permission was so granted to go ahead with the works and to complete the entire job as highlighted by the defendants under point nos. 1 to 18 of the aforesaid letter under reference at the earliest. 25. It would reveal from Exbts.-24 and 25 that 2 rooms were 'pucca' and 2 rooms were 'kancha' on the top floor. 26. Mr. M. Ghosh has invited my attention to the report of Debabrata Ghosh, registered architect and town planner dated 11.9.2008 Exbt.-26 collectively. The map annexed thereto shows that a reception counter has been installed on the ground floor room/the passage leading to the staircase and three toilets and five rooms have been shown on the top floor as constructed which are not according to the permission so granted by the plaintiffs/landlord. 27. Rent challan for the month of November, 2005 Exbt.-B shows that an independent unit consisting of entrance on the ground floor, 11 rooms with bath rooms on the 1st floor and the 2nd floor, 2 rooms and 2 kitchens with asbestos shed and toilets on the terrace/roof of the suit premises are under the tenancy of the defendants. 27. Rent challan for the month of November, 2005 Exbt.-B shows that an independent unit consisting of entrance on the ground floor, 11 rooms with bath rooms on the 1st floor and the 2nd floor, 2 rooms and 2 kitchens with asbestos shed and toilets on the terrace/roof of the suit premises are under the tenancy of the defendants. Evidence as per Exbts.-6, 24 and 25 explained the sketch map made part of the report of the Engineer Commissioner Exbt.-26 and it reflects that the construction were made as per the permission granted by plaintiffs to the defendants. 28. It would not be out of the context to take note of the fact that by letter dated 16.3.1994 Exbt.-18, the defendants have given detailed information to the plaintiffs to place on record the renovated picture of the permission after completion of entire job of renovation, replacements and reconstructions as it stood on the date which mentions about Entrance + Reception + Under Ground Water Reservoir + Meter Box on the ground floor. The 1st floor: 4 A.C. Rooms + 3 A.C. Attached Bath Rooms + 1 Big A.C. Room (182 x 272) + 7 Bathcum Toilets. The 2nd floor: 12 A.C. Rooms Attached Bath. The 3rd floor: 2 Pucca Rooms + 2 Brick wall Rooms with Top floor: ASDE Shed + 1 Kitchen with ASBE shed + 2 Bath rooms with ASBE Shed + 2 toilets with ASBE shed + 1 Store Room with ASBE Shed + open Terrace on the North Side. The said letter Exbt.-18 was duly received by the plaintiffs. Said renovation and construction as made under the permission of the plaintiffs was intimated to the plaintiffs on 16.3.1994 together with the sketch map as made part of the Engineer Commissioner's report Exbt.-26. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the plaint to the effect that one Mr. Arvind Jhunjhunwalla had negotiation with the plaintiffs for opening an Airtel franchisee shop in a portion of the ground floor of the premises consisting of 150 sq. ft. on 27th September, 2005 and on 30th September, 2005 the representative of Mr. Arvind Jhunjhunwalla had negotiation with the plaintiffs for opening an Airtel franchisee shop in a portion of the ground floor of the premises consisting of 150 sq. ft. on 27th September, 2005 and on 30th September, 2005 the representative of Mr. Arvind Jhunjhunwalla wanted physical inspection of the premises before finalizing any deal with the plaintiffs and about the removing of the old collapsible gate with that of a new gate installed on the ground floor at the entrance appears to this court to be a myth for the purpose of creation of cause of action to institute the suit. 29. The fact cannot be lost sight of that the letter of the plaintiffs addressed to the defendants on receipt of Diwali gifts and the expression and the impression exchanged between the parties reflect that the plaintiffs have no grievance or any allegations against the defendants who hoped only for maintaining sweet relationship towards each other. This letter Exbt.-21 dated 04.11.2005 is a post suit document as the suit was filed on 5th October, 2005. 30. In the context of the above discussion, I find that the tenancy of the central portion of the premises at 95A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta-700 073 was created in favour of the defendants consisting of the entire ground floor room/passage leading to the staircase, the entire first floor, second floor and top floor/entire roof top floor, obviously for the hotelier business of the defendants. It is a common knowledge that when a hotel business is run, a reception counter is always there for soliciting the customers who happens to be the inmates of the hotel. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendants have trespassed into any part or portion of the suit premises. 31. In view of the construction raised towards modification, alteration, reconstruction etc. in the suit premises in terms of the permission granted by the plaintiffs/landlord and the information on record so furnished to the plaintiffs after completion of the entire job vide Exbt.-18, it cannot be held that the defendants have made any unauthorized construction without knowledge/consent of the plaintiffs or the predecessor of the plaintiffs. in the suit premises in terms of the permission granted by the plaintiffs/landlord and the information on record so furnished to the plaintiffs after completion of the entire job vide Exbt.-18, it cannot be held that the defendants have made any unauthorized construction without knowledge/consent of the plaintiffs or the predecessor of the plaintiffs. Ergo, the allegations so made in the plaint by the plaintiffs against the defendants cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the entire tenancy of the central portion of the suit premises consisted of ground floor for the egress and ingress to the suit premises for the boarders of the defendants hotel on the 1st floor, 2nd floor and top floor of the premises. 32. In the context of the above discussion, the issue no. 4 and 5 are answered in the negative and against the plaintiffs. Issue No. 3 : 33. The issue relating to limitation is not pressed during trial, however, in view of the discussion in the foregoing issues, having perused the pleadings and materials-on-record, I find that the plaintiffs have contended that on 3rd October, 2005 the plaintiff no. 3 with the representative of one Mr. Arvind Jhunjhunwalla had physical inspection of the suit premises whereas I find from the letter dated 16.3.1994 Exbt.-18 that the defendants had informed about the intensive and extensive repairs, replacements and reconstructions of the building severally and dangerously damaged due to depression of the front side of the building under the written permission of the plaintiffs granted in favour of the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiffs had the knowledge about the said fact as on 16.3.1994 which included sketch map detailing the reconstruction and modification made at the suit premises. Ergo, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. 34. Thus, this issue is decided against the plaintiffs. Issue No. 1 & 2: 35. Both the issues are interlinked, hence, taken up together. In view of my findings in the aforesaid issues, I hold that the plaintiffs have no cause of action for the suit and the same is not maintainable being barred by principle of acquiescence. 36. Thus, the issues are answered in the negative and answered against the plaintiffs. Issue Nos. 6 & 7: 37. In the context of my findings in the foregoing issues, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree as prayed for. 38. In the result, suit fails. 39. 36. Thus, the issues are answered in the negative and answered against the plaintiffs. Issue Nos. 6 & 7: 37. In the context of my findings in the foregoing issues, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree as prayed for. 38. In the result, suit fails. 39. Hence, ordered that the civil suit being No. 263 of 2005 is hereby dismissed on contest against the defendants with costs. 40. Department and all parties to act on the signed photocopy of this judgment.