SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Cal) 773

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, J.
SMT AVA RANI DUTTA & ORS – Petitioners
Versus
THE 1ST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR – Respondents
WP No. 1064 of 2011
Decided on : 22nd August, 2012

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Partha Sarathi Bose, Senior Advocate. Mr. Fazlul Haque, Advocate. Mr. S. Sengupta, Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr. Ashis Chakraborty, Advocate. Mr. Ravi Kapur, Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 4 to 8
Mr. Ram Anand Agarwal, Advocate. Mr. Somnath Banerjee, Advocate, for the State-Respondents

The State authorities are obligated to deliver vacant possession of the tenanted portion to the tenant after de-requisitioning the property.

Headnote:

TENANCY - REQUISITION - DE-REQUISITION - POSSESSION - RESTORATION - RIGHT OF TENANT - LIABILITY OF STATE - WEST BENGAL PREMISES (REQUISITION AND CONTROL) ACT, 1947 - SECTION 10.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners are the successors of late Ganesh Chandra Dutta who was a tenant since 1957 in respect of eastern portion of 2nd floor at premises No.14, Hare Street, Kolkata – 700001 measuring about 1200 sq.ft. more or less under his landlord, Prafulla Charan Law, since deceased. The landlord had obtained orders before this Hon’ble Court for delivery of possession of both the said premises including the tenanted portion of the writ petitioners without making them as party respondents and without even pointing out that the tenanted portion should be handed over to the tenant.

Finding of the Court:

The State respondents acted contrary to law and connived with the landlords and also delivered possession to the landlords. By this time it is also settled that the landlords cannot evict a tenant by filing writ petition and without taking due process of applicable rent laws. The State respondents who are responsible for all these collusive acts ought to have informed this Court that the possession which was taken from the tenant should be delivered to the tenant or their successors.

Issues: Whether the State respondents are liable for delivering possession of the tenanted portion to the landlord and not to the successors of the tenant after de-requisitioning the property.

Ratio Decidendi: It is evident that the landlord at all stages have obtained orders before this Hon’ble Court for delivery of possession of both the said premises including the tenanted portion of the writ petitioners without making them as party respondents and without even pointing out that the tenanted portion should be handed over to the tenant. In my view, there is an obligation on the States authorities to deliver vacant possession of the tenanted portion to the tenant and in the instant case to the successor of the deceased tenant as required under Section 10 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control Act, 1947. But the State-Respondents acted contrary to law and connived with the landlords and also delivered possession to the landlords. By this time it is also settled that the landlords cannot evict a tenant by filing writ petition and without taking due process of applicable rent laws.

Final Decision: Accordingly, I direct the State respondents to get back possession of the tenanted portion from the landlord within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the order and to assess the rent compensation of that tenanted portion within the same period and to pay the same to the writ petitioners. They are also directed to deliver the derequisitioned portion of the tenanted premises to the writ petitioners.

Judgment

The writ petitioners are the successors of late Ganesh Chandra Dutta who was a tenant since 1957 in respect of eastern portion of 2nd floor at premises No.14, Hare Street, Kolkata – 700001 measuring about 1200 sq.ft. more or less under his landlord, Prafulla Charan Law, since deceased.

2. The writ petitioners filed this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents being State authorities to hand over the de-requisitioned area of the premises being the eastern portion of 2nd floor at 14, Hare Street, Kolkata – 700001 to the petitioners and to assess the rent compensation payable to the petitioners and also for making such payment.

3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta, since deceased, was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Benod Behari Nag and Ganesh Chandra Dutta from the aforementioned tenanted premises. It was submitted that a notice bearing No. 132/59 REQN dated 30th September 1959 under section 3(1) of the West Bengal Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1947 was issued for the purpose of requisitioning the premises in question and a direction was given in the said notice to the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta, since deceased, to hand over the possession of the tenanted premises on September 30, 1959 at 4.30 p.m. or on any subsequent date. In compliance with the said notice, possession of the said tenanted premises was handed over to the respondents. Thereafter, the First Land Acquisition Collector, Government of West Bengal, assessed rent compensation for the said premises and the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta during his life time was receiving rent compensation at the rate of Rs.164/- per month. Ganesh Chandra Dutta died intestate on 25th December 1994 leaving behind him surviving legal heirs and representatives who are the petitioners herein. It was contended that rent compensation was received by the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta till January 1994. Thereafter, no further rent compensation was paid. However, the petitioners on enquiry came to know that the rent compensation was enhanced by an order of this Hon’ble Court at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.ft. and they are entitled to get the rent at the same rate for 1200 sq.ft. area against which Ganesh Chandra Dutta was a tenant.

4. After the death of the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta, the petitioners as legal heirs and representatives inherited the tenancy since the right of tenancy is heritable. It was contended that neither the petitioners nor Ganesh Chandra Dutta ever surrendered the tenancy to the landlords nor the landlords issued notice of eviction to the petitioners or for vacating the said premises or initiated any proceedings for eviction. Accordingly the right of tenancy in respect of the tenanted portion is continuing and will continue until the petitioners as tenants are duly evicted by following statutory procedure. It was submitted that after the death of the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta, the petitioners received a copy of the Memo No.1281-82 dated 10th October, 1995. By the said Memo, the petitioners were informed that the tenanted portion of the concerned premises was de-requisitioned with effect from 27th September 1995 vide Land & Land Reforms Department’s order dated 594-REQN dated 27th February 1995. In that Memo request was made to the tenant to be present on the spot on 16-10-1995 at 1.00 p.m. for taking over vacant possession from the office of the Surveyor-Valuer. It was contended that in spite of the Memorandum, possession was not delivered to the petitioners or their constituted attorney Sri Samar Dutta who was present on the spot as per direction. It was submitted that one Samar Dutta was appointed to take care of the daily affairs of their properties and Samar Dutta occasionally visited the premises in question. The subject premises was used as office of the West Bengal Ceramic Development Corporation Ltd.

5. On or about 21st September 2011, the petitioners wer





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top