1999 Supreme(Cal) 252

High Court Of Calcutta
SATYABRATA SINHA, SAMARENDRA NATH BANERJEE
PRIYA BRATA MAITY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
M. A. T.  2970  Of  1997
Decided On : 05/07/1999

A stranger to an action who aids and abets the breach of a prohibitory order obstructs the course of justice, and his contempt is punishable by committal or attachment.

Headnote:

MUNICIPAL LAW - ACT - WEST BENGAL MUNICIPAL ACT, 1993 - Section 223 - Power to order demolition of buildings, dangerous, ruinous or unfit for human habitation - Mandatory provisions - Violation - Restitution - Mandatory injunction - Inherent jurisdiction of Court - Contempt of Court - Punishment - Mala fide - Restitution - Mandatory injunction - Inherent jurisdiction of Court - Suppression of document - Fraud on Court - Natural justice - Principles - Applicability.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioner/respondent was a tenant under the appellant in the disputed premises at Manickchak, Contai, Dist. , Midnapore since February, 1975 at a rental of Rs. 150/- per month. Following a dispute between the parties regarding repair works of the tenanted portion of the building and alleged threat of eviction by the son of the landlord, the tenant filed a T. S. No. 134 of 1996 in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Junior Division at Contai against the landlord and obtained an order for interim injunction on 14-8-1996 restraining the landlord from evicting the tenant from the suit premises till the disposal of the petition for temporary injunction. Sensing that the landlord had been trying to evict him by demolishing the premises through Municipality the respondent-tenant informed the Chairman, Contai Municipality of the order of injunction and by his letter dated 14-3-1997 sent by Regd. Post with A/d which was received by the Chairman.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Board of Councillors did not pass the resolution of demolition. 2. The Chairman and the two Councillors of whom one was local had no authority to pass any resolution under Section 223 of the West Bengal Municipal Act. 3. The requirements under the Act of sending notice Under Section 223 (1) of the Act both upon the owner and the tenant giving statutory time and obtaining an undertaking from the tenant/respondent or the owner were not complied with in utter violation of this section. 4. The Chairman of Municipality having no authority or jurisdiction to pass the said order of demolition of the disputed premises carried out the order of demolition in hot haste the next day with the help of police. 5. The Corporation who was impleaded both in the civil Court and the writ petition as a respondent brazenly violated the statutory provision of the Act as discussed above and actively aided and abetted the breach of prohibitory order passed by the Court.

Issues: 1. Whether the appellant should be allowed to withdraw the appeal after having reaped the benefits of the order of this Court by suppressing the material facts and making a false statement on affidavit before this Court? 2. Whether the appropriate relief prayed for by the tenant would be in the form of restitution in the demolished premises or in the form of compensation? 3. Whether the Court is empowered to do complete justice by restituting the tenant in his original position by directing to reconstruct the building, if necessary?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appellant should not be allowed to withdraw the appeal after having reaped the benefits of the order of this Court by suppressing the material facts and making a false statement on affidavit before this Court. 2. The appropriate relief prayed for by the tenant would be in the form of restitution in the demolished premises or in the form of compensation. 3. The Court is empowered to do complete justice by restituting the tenant in his original position by directing to reconstruct the building, if necessary.

Final Decision: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant and the Corporation are directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the respondent within two months from this date and respondent would be at liberty to start reconstruction of the premises and to take possession thereof after completion of such construction on payment of rent at the existing rate to the landlord commencing from the sixth month since the date of reconstruction being undertaken. 3. The Id. Registrar, Appellate Side, is hereby directed to lodge a complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta against the appellant, Sri Priya Brata Maity in M. A. T. No. 2970 of 1997 under Section 182 of the I. P. C.