Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 576
High Court Of Calcutta
ARUN KUMAR MITRA AND KISHORE KUMAR PRASAD, JJ.
EXHIBITORS SYNDICATE PVT.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
REPOSE PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. - Respondent
CAN 6135 Of 2005
Decided On : 09/07/2006
A.C.KAR, ASHOK DAS ADHIKARY, B.K.JAIN, D.DAS, D.ROY, JAHARLAL DEY, P.C.Paul Chowdhury, S.CHAKRABORTY, S.P.ROYCHOWDHURY,
Headnote:
INJUNCTION - STATUS QUO - CHANGE IN NATURE AND CHARACTER OF SUIT PROPERTY - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - IRREPARABLE LOSS AND INJURY - ORDER OF STATUS QUO MAINTAINED - NEITHER OF THE PARTIES ENTITLED TO CHANGE THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE SUIT PROPERTY TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE SUIT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Repose Properties Pvt. Ltd., entered into an agreement dated January 14th, 2005 with the proforma defendant Nos. 4 to 9 for purchase of the suit premises against consideration of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and sixty five lacs only) the said agreement was registered with the Registrar of Assurance and stamp duty of Rs. 17 lacs was deposited. Under the terms of the said agreement the plaintiff Repose properties was entitled to undertake possession of any part of the suit premises and/or evict any tenant and/or sub-tenant from occupation of the suit premises. It is once again to say that the suit premises, as per the schedule of the plaint is 138/1 Bidhan sarani over which Sree Cinema is there and we are concerned only with Sree Cinema.
Finding of the Court:
Considering all the aspects we are of the view that all the three applications -one under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 filed by the plaintiff, the other under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, C. P. C. filed by the defendant and the third, the application under Order 39, Rule 4 of C. P. C. filed by the defendant/appellant herein can be disposed of and are disposed of by maintaining order of status quo with further order that neither of the parties will be entitled to change the nature and character of the suit property till the disposal of the suit.
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to the order of status quo to maintain the nature and character of the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The settled position of law is that nobody can be evicted without due process of law. 2. A person in possession of the property cannot be dispossessed without due process of law. 3. The Court should not allow somebody to make the property irreversible. 4. Before passing an order of status quo the Court should decide as to what is status.
Final Decision: Appeal disposed of. Order of status quo maintained. Neither of the parties entitled to change the nature and character of the suit property till the disposal of the suit. Suit to be disposed of within six months.
Key Points: - The court maintained the order of status quo and directed that neither party is entitled to change the nature and character of the suit property until the disposal of the suit (!) . - The appeal was disposed of with a direction to the learned trial judge to dispose of the suit within six months (!) . - The court emphasized that nobody can be evicted without due process of law, even if a lease has expired (!) (!) . - The court found that the learned trial judge did not properly consider all the applications filed by the parties (!) (!) . - The court noted that before passing an order of status quo, the court should determine what the status is (!) (!) . - The court considered the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss and injury in its decision (!) . - The court found that there was a genuine apprehension of change in the nature and character of the suit property (!) . - The court directed that the suit property should not be made irreversible to ensure a fair decision (!) . - The court stated that if the property is made irreversible and the appellant is later found to have rights, they will suffer irreparable loss (!) . - The court decided not to remand the applications to the learned trial judge to avoid further expenditure of time (!) .
What is the legal principle regarding eviction without due process of law?
What is the court's duty when considering an order of status quo?
What are the criteria for granting an interim injunction?
( 1 ) CHALLENGE has been thrown against Order No. 7 dated 17-6-2005 passed by the learned IXth Bench of City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit no. 703 of 2005. Context of the case in which this appeal arose Is as follows :-Cultural Enterprises Corporation being the defendant No. 2 in Title Suit No. 703 of 2005 entered Into a deed of lease on 28th june, 1957 with Charuslla Dassi and Ann, the owners of the Premises No. 138/1, Bidhan saranl along with a cinema hall being Sree cinema. Two properties being 138/1 and 138/2 with two cinema halls Sree and Uttara were given on lease but In the instant suit we are concerned only with 138/1 Bidhan sarani i. e. . Sree Cinema.
( 2 ) THE lease was executed on July 18th, 1957 and it was for a period of 40 years I. e. the lease was valid till July 17th, 1997. A sub-lease was executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of the appellant herein in respect of the same premises and accordingly, the sub-lease was also to expire on 17th July, 1997.
( 3 ) ON behalf of the owners, a letter was issued by the advocate notifying that lease and sub-lease will expire by efflux of time on 17th July, 1997 and through this letter, possession was demanded.
( 4 ) DISPUTE started between the management of Sree Cinema and its staff and accordingly cinema hall was closed and work was suspended. Lease rent was Rs. 9000/- per month.
( 5 ) SECRETARY of the local Hawkers Union convened a meeting in front of the Cinema hall and declared that they will forcibly break open the padlocks of the Cinema Hall by snatching the key from durwan and will occupy the vacant lobby of the Cinema Hall and use the same for hawking by next day.
( 6 ) ONE Title Suit No. 1626 of 2001 was filed by the appellant against Dipankar sengupta in which an order of ad-interim status quo as regards the possession of the two Cinema Halls was granted.
( 7 ) APPELLANT initiated criminal proceedings against Sujit Singh and Ors. u/s. 144 (2)of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which the learned Magistrate directed the officer-in-Charge, Shyampukur P. S to enquire the matter and to see that no breach of peace takes place at the locality.
( 8 ) THE plaintiff M/s. Repose Properties (P) Ltd. entered into an agreement dated january 14th, 2005 with the proforma defendant Nos. 4 to 9 for purchase of the suit premises against consideration of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and sixty five lacs onlyjthe said agreement was registered with the Registrar of Assurance and stamp duty of Rs. 17 lacs was deposited. Under the terms of the said agreement the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 18 lacs to the defendant Nos. 4 to 9 as earnest money and/or part of the consideration. Under the terms of the said agreement the plaintiff Repose properties was entitled to undertake possession of any part of the suit premises and/or evict any tenant and/or sub-tenant from occupation of the suit premises. It is once again to say that the suit premises, as per the schedule of the plaint is 138/1 Bidhan sarani over which Sree Cinema is there and we are concerned only with Sree Cinema.
( 9 ) IT is once again made clear that Cultural enterprises Corporation being the defendant no. 2 in the suit, took lease of the premises or the suit property from Charusila dassi and Debi Prasanna Ghose, the predecessor-in-lnterest of the proforma defendant nos. 4 to 9.
( 10 ) IT is alleged that union of the workers' Sree-Uttara House Committee went into possession of the Cinema Hall and ultimately, rs. 60,000/- was paid and the said committee delivered possession to the plaintiff.
( 11 ) THE plaintiff, accordingly sent a letter dated April 21st, 2005 to the said Committee being the proforma defendant No. 10 and in the said letter the plaintiff said that they are agreeable to pay Rs. 60. 000/- and they are also agreeable to make the workers of the Cinema Hall permanent and as indi-cated above possession was delivered by the proforma defendant No. 10 on 21-4-2005. The said Com
