D/L.15. July 14, 2026. MNS. FMAT No. 135 of 2026 + CAN 1 of 2026 + CAN 2 of 2026 Munir Ahmed and others Vs. Ahmed Hussain Sk. Reazul Islam, Adv. … for the appellants. Mr. Wasim Ahmed, Mr. M. Shetabuddin, Advs. …for the respondent. Re : CAN 1 of 2026 (condonation). 1. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the averments made in the condonation application, we find that sufficient explanation for the delay in preferring the appeal has been furnished. 2. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2026 is allowed, thereby condoning the delay in preferring FMAT No. 135 of 2026. 3. There will be no order as to costs. 4. Accordingly, we take up the appeal for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. The present challenge has been preferred by the defendants/appellants in a suit filed by the respondents for declaration of their tenancy rights and for permanent injunction protecting their possession. 2 6. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the appellants, being the owners of the suit property, entered into an agreement for development of the property with a developer. 7. In terms of the said development agreement, the present respondent, who is a tenant in respect of the subject property, is to be given accommodation commensurate with his present rights in the new building, to be constructed after development. 8. It is submitted that in a prior suit filed by the appellants for declaration of their right, title and interest and for permanent injunction, an ex parte ad interim injunction was passed against the present respondents, restraining the latter and their men, agents and associates from causing any obstruction to the ingress and egress of the present appellants and their men and agents to and from the suit premises and also from obstructing the present appellants from doing any lawful work in connection with the construction of new building at the said premises in accordance with the sanctioned building plan of the KMC. 9. Learned counsel argues that the present impugned order is contrary to the earlier injunction obtained by the appellants and, as such, is de hors the law. 10. However, such contention is not tenable in the eye of law. 11. In view of the plaintiff / respondent herein being admittedly a tenant under the appellants in respect of the 3 subject property, the learned trial Judge was perfectly justified in protecting such possession in the capacity of tenant by directing the defendants / present appellants to maintain status quo in respect of the present physical possession of the plaintiff over the suit property until the disposal of the suit and not to evict him therefrom by applying any unlawful means or by force. 12. By its very nature, the impugned order leaves scope for the appellants/owners to obtain eviction of the respondent, if otherwise so entitled in law, by due process of law, that is, by filing a regular eviction suit, since such procedure would not be “unlawful means” or “by force”, which modes of ouster have been precluded by the impugned order. Thus, the appellants cannot have any grievance on such count. 13. Moreover, the bilateral agreement between the appellants/owners and the developer cannot bind the respondent/tenant, who is legitimately entitled to continuance of his tenancy rights and possession in respect of the subject property, not being a party to the development agreement. 14. The ad interim injunction obtained in the earlier suit was passed ex parte in the absence of the present respondent and, as such, the respondent did not have the opportunity to indicate his interest as tenant in the subject property or to have a say in such injunction. 15. Even otherwise, the earlier ex parte order dated June 16, 2025 specifically enumerates that the present 4 respondent cannot obstruct the appellants from doing any “lawful work”. Such lawfulness of the construction has to be read in conjunction with the existing tenancy rights of the present respondent and cannot be in derogation thereof. Hence, the appellants cannot, in the garb of development of the suit property, oust the plaintiff/respondent or demolish the respondent’s tenanted portion therein, for the simple reason that the same would be unlawful, and not “lawful” work. As such, there is no conflict in essence between the apparently contradictory injunction orders passed in the two suits. 16. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order. 17. Accordingly, FMAT No. 135 of 2026 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 18. Consequentially, CAN 2 of 2026 is dismissed as well. 19. It is made clear that none of the above observations shall unduly influence the learned trial Judge in either of the suits at any further stage of the suit or the injunction application. 20. There will be no order as to costs. 21. Urgent certified copies of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)