Anjan Kumar Roy vs Chaitali Roy And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 1813 Cal/2

                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                               ORIGINAL SIDE

BEFORE:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur

                                  GA/4/2022
                                       In
                              C.S. No. 88 of 2020


                              Anjan Kumar Roy
                                      -vs-
                             Chaitali Roy and Anr.

For the Plaintiff              : Mr. Utpal Bose, Sr. Adv,
                                 Mr. Sayan Ganguly, Adv,
                                 Ms.Lababtasree Sinha, Adv

For the Defendant              : Mr.A. K. Chatterjee, Adv,
                                 Mr. Mr. R. Dutta, Adv,
                                 Mr. A. P. Agarwalla, Adv

Heard on                       : 26.04.2022, 13.05.2022

Judgment on                    : 04.07.2022

Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.:

1)    This is a suit for partition and administration. There are diverse

      properties both movable and immovable which form the subject

      matter of the suit.

2)    This application pertains to a residential property, being Premises No.

      57/2, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata-700019 (the premises). The

      premises is the shared residence of both the petitioner and the

      respondents.

3) The petitioner is in occupation of the ground floor of the premises,

whereas the respondents occupy and reside on the first floor. The

premises has two entrances, i.e. the northern entrance which is the

main entrance to the house and is the single point of access to the

upper floors, terrace and water tanks, and the southern entrance

which is a private door-way leading into the ground floor occupied by

the petitioner. The main entrance is also the only point of access to

the CESC electricity meters, the petitioner's personal mail box,

doorbell and washroom for the petitioner's housekeeping staff.

4) In this application, the petitioner seeks appointment of a Receiver in

order to facilitate free ingress and egress of the petitioner to the

common areas of the premises by putting new padlocks on the

entrances or passages leading to the aforementioned common areas.

The conduct of the respondents in preventing the petitioner from

having easy, smooth and uninterrupted access to the common areas

of the premises except through the private living space of the

petitioner is the bone of contention of the parties.

5) It is alleged by the petitioner that, this application has been

necessitated due to the fact that, the southern entrance of the

premises opens into an open garage used by the petitioner and the

private balcony of the petitioner, which in turn leads to the residential

area wherein the petitioner resides. Thus, there is no way of accessing

the common areas and amenities through the southern entrance, save

and except through the private living space of the petitioner.

Consequently, all third party outsiders such as CESC representatives,

KMC officials etc. can only use the private accommodation area of the

petitioner to access such common areas. It is also alleged on behalf of

the petitioner that both parties had been using the northern entrance,

main door to access the common areas in the house up to October,

2020. However, since the filing of this suit, the respondent has locked

up the northern entrance with their personal locks. This has resulted

in the petitioner being prevented any access to the upper floors of the

premises including the letter box, the electric meter and the water

tanks except by way of access through the private living space of the

petitioner.

6) There is also a prior application being GA/3/2020, wherein Joint

Receivers had been appointed in respect of the premises.

7) On behalf of the respondents it in alleged that, the petitioner is able to

access the electric meter box, the letter box and other common areas

through his own living space. Thus, there is no question of the

petitioner being granted the keys through the northern entrance.

There is no denial of the fact that the northern entrance also leads to

common areas of the premises. There is also no denial of the fact that

the common areas including the terraces on the second and third floor

are under the lock and key of the respondents. The only contention of

the respondents is that, there is no reason for the petitioner to insist

on having the keys through the northern side entrance, since the

common areas can also be accessed from the southern entrance. The

respondents do not controvert the fact that access to the common

areas from the southern side is not possible except through the

private living room area of the petitioner.

8) Significantly, despite repeated opportunities being granted to the

parties to try to amicably resolve the disputes, the parties where

unable to arrive at any consensus.

9) In my view, the grievance of the petitioner insofar as the respondents

continue to keep the northern gate and main entrance locked thereby

denying the petitioner free ingress and access to the upper floors and

common areas is concerned is justified. I find that access to such

common areas only through the private living areas of the petitioner is

not a viable option. The nuisance, annoyance and invasion of privacy

which the petitioner complains of, is not without basis. In my view,

the petitioner ought to be permitted free ingress and egress to the

common areas of the premises which includes the common roof, water

tanks, underground water reservoir, meter box etc. from the northern

entrance. In fact, by letters dated February 4, 2021 and February 26,

2021 the Advocate on behalf of the respondent had agreed to provide a

set of keys of the northern entrance to the petitioner. However, this

was conditional on the petitioner handing over a duplicate set of keys

of the southern entrance of the premises to the petitioner. I find that

the stand taken by the respondent in demanding for the duplicate set

of keys to the southern entrance is unwarranted. There is nothing to

demonstrate that the respondent is facing any similar difficulty or

inconvenience in the absence of the duplicate keys to the premises

from the southern entrance. Accordingly, the stand of the respondents

is unreasonable and rejected.

10) In view of the aforesaid, there shall be an order in terms of prayer (a)

of the Notice of Motion. Mr. Prabhakhar Choudhury, a member of the

Bar Library Club, is appointed Receiver to implement this order. The

Receiver shall be paid remuneration of 2000 gms. The remuneration

shall be paid by the petitioner. With the aforesaid directions, GA 4 of

2022 stands disposed of.

(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)