Calcutta High Court
Jatia Estates Ltd vs Nirwan Finvest Pvt Ltd on 17 April, 2025
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
OD-12 ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
APOT/98/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2025
JATIA ESTATES LTD
VS
NIRWAN FINVEST PVT LTD
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
Date : April 17, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Tilak Kumar Bose, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arindam Guha, Adv.
Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Adv.
Ms. Shalini Dey, Adv.
...for the appellant.
Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shyamal Sarkar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ram Anand Agarwala, Adv.
Ms. Nibedita Pal, Adv.
Mr. V. Gupta, Adv.
...for the defendant.
The Court: The appellant is the landlord. The respondent is the
tenant. The premises concerned is 21, Rupchand Roy Street, Burrabazar,
Kolkata- 700007 being a ground+3 storeyed building. The appellant filed a
suit for eviction against the respondent. In that suit, the appellant filed an
application for injunction to restrain the respondent from alienating, parting
with possession, changing the nature and character of the suit premises.
That was GA No. 1 of 2024.
The defendant in the suit being the respondent here filed an
application for dismissal of the suit being GA No. 2 of 2024.
The appellant then filed an application under Chapter XIIIA of the
Original Side Rules of this Court for final judgment and decree of eviction
being GA No. 3 of 2024.
The defendant then filed an application for extension of time to file
written statement being GA No. 4 of 2024.
By a judgment and decree dated March 6, 2025, the suit and all four
applications were disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court by passing an
eviction decree.
The defendant has filed an appeal against the decree of eviction and is
enjoying an order of stay on certain terms and conditions which may not be
immediately relevant.
The appellant has filed the present appeal contending that the order of
injunction that the appellant was enjoying during the hearing of the suit
before the learned Single Judge, should have been continued by the learned
Judge while disposing of the suit and the four applications. The appellant
further contends that the learned Single Judge should have appointed a
Receiver for collection of rents from the actual occupants of the premises in
question who claim to be sub-tenants under the respondent. Accordingly,
the appellant has taken out an application in this appeal for appointment of
a Receiver as also for an order of injunction.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. It is not
in dispute that the appellant/plaintiff was enjoying an order of injunction
during the hearing of the suit.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that for the ends of justice and given
the nature of the present proceedings, pending disposal of this appeal, there
should be an order of injunction restraining the defendant/respondent, their
men, agents, servants and/or assignees from creating any third party
interest and/or inducting any third party over the premises No. 21,
Rupchand Roy Street, Burrabazar, Kolkata- 700007 in any manner
whatsoever.
Since there are other prayers in the stay petition, let the parties
exchange affidavits. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a fortnight
from date (May 1, 2025); reply, if any, be filed within a week thereafter (May
8, 2025).
List this matter three weeks hence (May 15, 2025) under the
appropriate heading.
(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)
(OM NARAYAN RAI, J.)
S.A.
AR (CR)
