Broadway Centre vs Brojonath Boral
2022 Latest Caselaw 5669 Cal

22.08.2022
 KC(6)

                                F.M.A. 1289 of 2021
                                 Broadway Centre
                                      -versus-
                                  Brojonath Boral
                                        With
                                   CAN 1 of 2021
                                        With
                                   CAN 3 of 2022



             Mr.   Aniruddha Chatterjee,
             Mr.   Rahul Karmakar,
             Mr.   Sarosij Dasgupta,
             Mr.   Suman Majumder...................For the appellant.

             Mr. Asit Baran Rout,
             Mr. Tuhin Subhra Rout,
             Ms. Ishita Rout.............................For the respondent.

We admit the appeal.

A serious question will be involved during the trial

of the suit with regard to the title of the subject

property.

According to the appellants, the title has been

declared to be vested in them by a decree of this court

pronounced on 1st February, 2002 and affirmed by the

division bench on 8th March, 2016 in Suit No. 378 of

1995 (Broadway Centre -vs- Gopal Das Bagri). The

appeal against this judgment and decree was dismissed

by the Supreme Court on 27th February, 2017.

In spite of this, Brojanath Boral maintained a suit

against Gopal Das Bagree and after his death Nikhil

Nischori Bagree (Title Suit No. 297 of 2000) before the

learned Judge of the 2nd Bench, City Civil Court at

Calcutta and obtained a declaratory decree dated 31st

August, 2018 in his favour with regard to the subject

property. This, it is submitted, is absolutely

contradictory to the above declaration of title made by

this court.

Challenging this decree dated 31st August, 2018,

the appellant has instituted the present suit in the

learned City Civil Court (Title Suit No. 1811 of 2019)

praying for inter alia an order of injunction adgainst the

respondent restraining his creation of third party

interest in the subject premises and other consequential

reliefs.

Considering the above substantial question of

title which is involved in the suit, we direct that the

parties shall maintain status quo regarding occupation

and possession of the said premises. Status quo shall

also be maintained with regard to otherwise dealing

with the property or creation of any encumbrance on it.

No further tenant, licensee or occupier shall be

inducted by the respondent without the leave of the

learned court below.

It is submitted that up to 2019 only the appellant

was collecting rent from the subject property. After

obtaining the impugned decree from the learned court

below from 2019 the respondent is collecting rent for

part of the property.

Since both the parties are collecting rent and this

is going on from 2019, we only direct that the

respondent shall furnish a by-monthly statement of

accounts of rent collected and expenses borne out of

such collections to the appellant.

We request the learned court below to dispose of

the suit within a year of communication of this order.

As it is submitted that there is no available bench

to hear out this suit, we direct the parties or either of

them to serve a copy of this order on the learned Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, to enable him to take

steps in the matter.

The impugned judgment and order is set aside.

The appeal (F.M.A. 1289 of 2021) and the

connected applications (CAN 1 2021 and CAN 3 of

2022) are disposed of after dispensing with all

formalities.

(I.P. MUKERJI, J.)

(SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.)