Back
High Court Of Calcutta
D. K. SETH
MEHTA SURAYA - Appellant
Versus
UNITED INVESTMENT CORPORATION - Respondent
C. S. 183 Of 1999
Decided On : 02/05/2002
The dispute arose from a lease agreement between Mehta Suraya Pvt. Ltd. (Mehta Suraya) and United Investment Corporation (UIC) for a 33-year period with two optional renewal periods of 33 years each. In 1997, Mehta and Suraya transferred their rights and interests in Mehta Suraya and UIC to a group consisting of Bachraj Dugar, Sudhir Prakash, and their representatives. In 1999, Mehta Suraya filed a suit against UIC for recovery of vacant possession of the land without any mention of the building and obtained a decree in its favor. UIC preferred an appeal against the decree, which was dismissed. Subsequently, Mehta Suraya filed an application for amendment of the decree to include the words "including the ten-storeyed building standing thereon." The amendment was allowed, and the decree was signed by the trial court. The intervenors, including the plaintiff in CS 171 of 2001, IPM Industries Ltd. (IPM), challenged the amendment and filed an application for setting aside the order amending the decree and for dismissal of the execution application. The main issues before the court were whether the decree, as amended, was executable and whether the intervenors had an independent right to resist the execution.
Fact of the Case:
Mehta Suraya Pvt. Ltd. (Mehta Suraya) and United Investment Corporation (UIC) entered into a lease agreement for a 33-year period with two optional renewal periods of 33 years each. In 1997, Mehta and Suraya transferred their rights and interests in Mehta Suraya and UIC to a group consisting of Bachraj Dugar, Sudhir Prakash, and their representatives. In 1999, Mehta Suraya filed a suit against UIC for recovery of vacant possession of the land without any mention of the building and obtained a decree in its favor. UIC preferred an appeal against the decree, which was dismissed. Subsequently, Mehta Suraya filed an application for amendment of the decree to include the words "including the ten-storeyed building standing thereon." The amendment was allowed, and the decree was signed by the trial court. The intervenors, including the plaintiff in CS 171 of 2001, IPM Industries Ltd. (IPM), challenged the amendment and filed an application for setting aside the order amending the decree and for dismissal of the execution application.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the decree, as amended, was not executable and that the intervenors had an independent right to resist the execution. The court found that the amendment to the decree was made without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity. The court also found that the intervenors, as sub-tenants, had an independent right to resist the execution of the decree since they were not parties to the suit and had not been given an opportunity to be heard.
Issues: 1. Whether the decree, as amended, was executable. 2. Whether the intervenors had an independent right to resist the execution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the decree, as amended, was not executable because the amendment was made without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity. 2. The court held that the intervenors, as sub-tenants, had an independent right to resist the execution of the decree since they were not parties to the suit and had not been given an opportunity to be heard.
Final Decision: The court allowed the intervenors' application for setting aside the order amending the decree and for dismissal of the execution application. The court also granted an injunction restraining the plaintiff decree holder from executing the decree against the intervenors until the disposal of the suit filed by the intervenors challenging the decree.
( 1 ) THE Court : The Dispute : The decree in C. S. No. 183 of 1999 was put to execution in G. A. No. 3750 of 2000 by the decree holder Mehta Suraya. The applicant in G. A. No. 3 of 2001, has prayed for setting aside the order amending the said decree and for dismissal of the execution application. The said applicants had also filed a suit being C. S. No. 171 of 2001 for declaration that the decree dated 11th October, 1999 passed in C. S. No. 183 of 1999 (Mehta Suraya Pvt. Ltd. v. United Investment Corporation) and the appellate decree dated 3rd January 2000 passed in APOT No. 913 of 1999 (United Investment Corporation v. Mehta Surya Pvt. Ltd.) by this Hon'ble Court, were obtained in collusion and connivance with each other and by practicing fraud upon this Hon'ble Court and as such the said decrees are fraudulent, illegal null and void and be cancelled and set aside. T. No. 240 of 2001 has been filed in the said C. S. No. 171 of 2001 for receiver and injunction. These 3 applications being G. A. No. 3750 of 2000, G. A. No. 3 of 2001 and T. No. 240 of 2001 were taken up for hearing by consent of the parties, since the decision on one application will affect the other and the question raised in each of these applications are interrelated and mostly common in each other. Facts:
( 2 ) IN order to decide the issues raised in relation to the said 3 applications, it would be relevant to refer to the facts in the form of List of dates as hereafter: 16th July 1962:mehta Suraya granted a lease of vacant land at Ezra Street, Calcutta for 33 years with two options for renewal for two further successive period of 33 years each, to its sister concern United Investment Corporation (UIC) (being the defendant No. 1 herein) (Pg. 87 of T 240 of 2001. 1965:uic constructed a 12 storied building on the said land known as world Trade Center (hereinafter referred to as ?the said building? ). 1965 onwards:uic sub-let various portions of the said building to various tenants, who have since been occupying the said building and regularly paying rent, service charges and electricity charges to UIC. 23rd September 1975:supplemental Deed was executed and registered by and between UIC and Mehta Suraya confirming the power of UIC to sub-let any part of the building at its absolute discretion without further permission from mehta Suraya (Pg. 98 of T. 240 of 2001.) 2nd July 1995:before the original term of 33 years expired UIC exercised its option for renewal of the original lease for a further term of 33 years i. e. , till 2028. 1997:the Mehta and Suraya families and their associates, who were all along the owners, shareholders and partners of UIC and Mehta Suraya, transferred their rights and interests in Mehta Suraya and UIC to a group consisting of Bachraj Dugar, Sudhir Prakash and their representatives. 15th December 1997:by a letter written by UIC to Mehta Suraya, UIC purported to terminate the said lease and agreed to deliver vacant possession of the said building with effect from 1st July 1998. (Pg. 104 of T 240/2001) 26th March 1999:mehta Suraya instituted a suit being C. S. No. 183 of 1999 against UIC for recovery of vacant possession of the land without any mention about the building and for other reliefs. The tenants of UIC were not made parties to this suit. 20th April 1999:on the basis of the letter dated 15th December, 1997, an application was filed by Mehta Suraya for judgment upon admission and for eviction of UIC from the said land. 11th October 1999:hon'ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. , at the hearing of the application for judgment on admission, was pleased to pass an ejectment decree only against UIC on the basis of the admission contained in the said letter dated 15th December 1997. (Pg. 105) (T 240 of 2001) december 1999:uic preferred an appeal against the ejectment decree. 3rd January 2000:the appellate Court after hearing the appeal of UIC on merits, dismissed the appeal. 8th May 2000:special Leave Petition preferred agains
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
