Calcutta High Court
Bahubali Estates Limited vs Sewnarayan Khubchand And Ors on 4 November, 2024
OC-6
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA No. GA-COM/3/2024
In CS-COM/708/2024
BAHUBALI ESTATES LIMITED
Vs
SEWNARAYAN KHUBCHAND AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Date : November 04 , 2024.
Appearance:
Mr. Sakya Sen, Adv.
Mr. Biswajib Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Avirup Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Rishov Das, Adv.
...for the plaintiff
The Court: Mr. Sakya Sen, learned Counsel, is appearing for the
plaintiff.
None appears on behalf of the defendants.
Affidavit-of-service filed by the plaintiff be kept with the record.
The plaintiff has filed the present application being GA-
COM/3/2024 praying for an interim order.
On 17th June, 1982 a lease agreement was entered between the
parties with respect of the suit property for a period of 99 years with two
options of renewal for 99 years each.
Counsel for the plaintiff submits that earlier also the defendants
had violated the terms and conditions of the lease agreement and
accordingly the plaintiff had filed the suit for eviction but the suit was
dismissed by an order dated 5th July, 2019 in Title Suit No.1076/1998 by
the Learned Judge 5th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta.
Being aggrieved with the said judgment and decree passed by the
learned City Civil Court, the plaintiff had preferred an appeal before this
Court and at the time of hearing of the appeal, this Court had appointed
Receiver and directed the defendants to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of
Rs.4250/- per month from the month of December 1992 till the month of
May, 2021. Subsequently, this Court has fixed the occupational charges of
the said premises at Rs.20,000/- per month from June, 2021 payable by 7th
July 2021 for the month of June, 2021 and month by month by 7 th of each
month to be paid in similar manner and deposited by the Joint Receivers in
the said account.
Finally the appeal was disposed of by an order dated 13th April,
2022 wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held that the
plaintiff company by operation of law has become the owner of the suit
property and landlord of the defendants. The Hon'ble Division Bench has
further held that the defendant no.1 was willing to pay the rent to the
rightful owner as well as the municipal taxes with respect of the suit
premises and accordingly the Hon'ble Court had directed the defendants to
pay the arrears rent till the month of March 2022, if not paid by 30th April,
2022 and the municipal rent and taxes in terms of the lease agreement
within 15th May, 2022.
Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendants have lastly
paid the rent till the month of March 2022 and thereafter they have neither
paid the rent from April 2022 nor have paid any taxes to the concerned
authority which the defendant no.1 is liable to pay. As the defendant no.1
has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement, accordingly, the
plaintiff had issued a notice on 9th August, 2023 by determining the lease
agreement and calling upon the defendants to vacate the premises and to
hand over the premises within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice.
The notice was duly served upon the defendants and on receipt of the
notice, the defendants had sent reply on 25th August, 2023 stating that they
have not violated any terms and conditions of the lease agreement dated
17th June, 1982 and the rent deposited by the defendants is liable to be
adjusted with the monthly rent.
Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendants are not
paying the monthly rent or the required tax and on the other hand the
defendants are trying to make construction in addition to the lease premises
as well as also trying to create a sub-tenancy in the suit premises by letting
out the premises to the third party. Accordingly, counsel for the plaintiff
prays for an interim order.
Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
Perused the materials on record.
This Court finds that in the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the Hon'ble
Court has declared that the plaintiff is the landlord of the premises in
question. It is also admitted that the order passed by the appellate Court
has not been challenged by the defendants and accepted that the plaintiff is
the owner and the landlord of the premises in question. It is the specific
case of the plaintiff that in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division
Bench in an appeal, the defendants have paid the monthly rent till the
month of March 2022 and thereafter they failed to pay the monthly rent and
also not paying the municipal taxes. It is the specific averment made in the
plaint that the defendants are making construction over the suit premises
and the defendants are also trying to let out the premises to the third party
by creating sub-tenancy in the suit property.
Considering the above, this Court finds that the plaintiff has made
out a prima facie case and balance of convenience and inconvenience is in
favour of the plaintiff. This Court also finds that if at this stage the
defendants are not restrained from making any construction over and above
the premises and from letting out the premises to any third party, the
plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury which will also create
multiplicity of proceeding in future.
Accordingly, the defendants, their men, agents, servants are
restrained from raising any construction over the suit property or changing
nature and character of the suit property and also restrained the defendants
from creating any third party interest over the suit property till 29 th
November, 2024.
The plaintiff is directed to serve the copy of the application, plaint
and the documents to the defendants and to file affidavit of service on the
next date fixed.
(KRISHNA RAO, J.)
sp3
