Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ramkrishna Nayak vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 April, 2023
D/L
Item No. 17
11.04.2023
KOLE
MAT 619 of 2023
With
IA No. CAN 1 of 2023
Ramkrishna Nayak
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Amit Baram Dash,
Mr. Ankara Sarkar,
... for the appellant.
Mr. Debjit Mukherjee,
Mr. Susmita Chatterjee,
... for the State.
Mr. Jayanta Kumar Das,
Mr. Madhumanti Das,
... for the municipality.
A judgment and order dated March 24, 2023,
whereby the appellant's writ petition was disposed of is
under challenge in this appeal.
It appears that the appellant is a tenant under the
private respondent no. 9 in respect of the concerned
premises. It appears that the building in question required
demolition and the private respondent wanted to reconstruct
the building. The private respondent filed an undertaking
before the Learned Single Judge that in the reconstructed
building he will offer 548 sq. ft. area to the appellant/writ
petitioner on monthly rental basis as per market value for
business purpose. The private respondent had also filed an
undertaking before the learned Judge mentioning that he
will construct a new building within two years from the date
of demolition.
In the above factual background, the learned Single
Judge disposed of the writ petition by recording as follows:-
"Learned Advocate for the petitioner is
agreeable to the area of the room that will
be provided to him in the newly constructed
building. The petitioner seeks some time to
vacate the tenanted premises.
The petitioner is granted time till 13th April,
2023 for vacating the portion which he is
presently occupying so that the private
respondent may take steps for demolition of
the same and for construction of a new
building thereon in accordance with the
plan to be sanctioned by the Municipality.
The private respondent shall be obliged to
hand over possession of the room in the
newly constructed building to the petitioner
in terms of the undertaking filed in Court."
Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has come up by
way of this appeal.
From the affidavit of service filed in court today it
does not appear that service has actually been effected on the
private respondent. However, we do not wish to adjourn the
hearing of the matter since we are not inclined to entertain
the appeal.
From the impugned order it is clear that the
appellant/writ petitioner was agreeable to accept 548 sq. ft.
area in the building to be newly constructed after demolition
of the existing building. The appellant sought some time to
vacate the tenanted premises. Accordingly, the learned
Judge granted him time till April 13, 2023.
In the above background, the appellant cannot have
any legitimate grievance against the impugned order.
Learned Advocate for the appellant submits before us
that the appellant was never agreeable to vacate the tenanted
premises. Only the Civil Court has the power under Section
6 (c) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, to
direct the appellant to vacate the premises in question upon
passing an eviction decree. We are not inclined to entertain
such argument as the same was not advanced before the
Learned Single Judge. The impugned order was based on
concession and prayer of the writ petitioner and hence, in
our opinion, no appeal would lie therefrom.
If the appellant is aggrieved by any incorrect
recording in the impugned order, his remedy is to approach
the learned Single Judge. We have to go by what is recorded
in the order brought before us and we cannot accept any
submission made on behalf of the appellant contrary to the
submission of the appellant recorded in the impugned order.
Since we have not called for affidavits, the allegations
made in the stay application, are deemed not to be admitted
by the respondents.
The appeal and the connected application are,
accordingly, disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be
supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
