Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 582
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Subrata Talukdar, J.
Ashok Kumar Shaw & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
First Land Acquisition Collector, Kolkata & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2038 of 2020, 2123 of 2020, 2124 of 2020, 2125 of 2020, 2126 of 2020, 2198 of 2020, 2200 of 2020, 2201 of 2020, 2203 of 2020, 2208 of 2020, 2209 of 2020, 2210 of 2020, 2220 of 2020, 2221 of 2020, 2254 of 2020, 2255 of 2020, 2256 of 2020, 2257 of 2020, 2275 of 2020, 2276 of 2020, 2277 of 2020, 2307 of 2020
Decided On : 21-10-2020
Shaktinath Mukherjee, Advocate, Saptansu Basu, Advocate, Suparna Mukherjee, Advocate, Abhijit Sarkar, Advocate, Mrinalini Majumder, Advocate, Souvik Sana, Advocate, Chandi Charan De, Advocate, Tapas Ashikari, Advocate, Somraj Dhar, Advocate, Kishore Dutta, Advocate, Alok Kumar Ghosh, Advocate, Achintya Kumar Banerjee, Advocate, Dilip Kumar Chatterjee, Advocate, Swapan Debnath, Advocate, Gopal Chandra Das, Advocate, Debangsu Mondal, Advocate, Sushovan Sengupta, Advocate, Subir Pal, Advocate, Dipankar Pal, Advocate, Kishore Datta, Advocate, T.M. Siddiqui, Advocate, Nilotpal Chatterjee, Advocate, Sougata Mitra, Advocate, Supratim Dhar, Advocate, Ashim Kumar Ganguly, Advocate, Karabi Roy, Advocate, Amit Prokash Lahiri, Advocate, Suvro Prokash Lahiri, Advocate, Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, Advocate, Subhasish Bandyopadhyay, Advocate, Aniruddha Sen, Advocate, Priyabrata Batabyal, Advocate, Rabindra Narayan Dutta, Advocate, Suprabhat Bhattacharyya, Advocate, Anirban Sarkar, Advocate, Sreelekha Bhattacharyya, Advocate, Somenath Mukhopadhyay, Advocate, Sukla Das Chandra, Advocate
The rights of sub-lessees/tenants are extinguished with the determination of the tenancy of the original lessee.
Headnote:
Eviction - Lease Rights - West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 - Section 3(1)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claim to be shop owners and residents of Premises number 4A and 4B, Chowringhee Place, Kolkata 700013. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) initiated eviction proceedings against the Bengal Properties Private Limited, the new Lease Holder, under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962. The petitioners, as sub-lessees/tenants, challenged the eviction proceedings, claiming that they cannot be treated as Unauthorised Occupants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rights of the sub-lessees/tenants stand extinguished with the determination of the tenancy of the original lessee. The order of eviction against Bengal Properties was upheld, and the court concluded that the primary issues raised in the writ petition had reached finality with previous orders.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rights of the sub-lessees/tenants and the application of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rights of the sub-lessees/tenants were extinguished with the determination of the tenancy of the original lessee, and the order of eviction against the original lessee was upheld.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, but the parties were permitted to renegotiate their mutual status if advised. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
Subrata Talukdar, J. - The petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions canvas a common cause of action. Accordingly, this bunch of writ petitions are considered analogously and decided by this common judgement.
2. The petitioners claim to be shop owners and residents of Premises number 4A and 4B, Chowringhee Place, Kolkata 700013 (hereinafter referred to for short as the said Premises or, only as the Premises). The history of the said Premises commenced with an Indenture of Lease dated 6th October 1906 between the then Corporation of Calcutta and one Maurice Edward Bandmann. The Calcutta Corporation being the paramount Title Holder of the said Premises granted the Lessor/Mr. Bandmann the right to hold the property in lease for a period of ninety-nine years. During the subsistence of the lease period, Edward Bandmann inducted one Arathoon as an interest holder in the said Premises. Finally, on the demise of both Bandmann and Arathoon the said Premises shifted to the Respondent No. 4 of this writ petition/ the Bengal Properties Private Limited (for short referred to only as R4, or as the Bengal Properties) as the new Lease Holder under the now Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC).
3. The petitioners claim to be sub-lessees/tenants under the Bengal Properties. With the original lease of 1906 having expired in 2005, the KMC, now being the paramount Title Holder, moved the Respondent No.1/ The First Land Acquisition Collector, Kolkata (for short R1/the FLAC) to initiate eviction proceedings against Bengal Properties by invoking Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 (for short the 1962 Act).
4. Being aggrieved by the eviction proceeding, which also brought within its scope and ambit the petitioners by describing them as Unauthorised Occupants under the 1962 Act, the petitioners have moved the Hon''ble Court seeking quashing of the said eviction proceeding numbered as Eviction Case No. XIII/1/2019 as pending before R1/ the FLAC (hereinafter also referred to as the said Eviction Case).
5. The petitioners, on the strength of several documents purportedly reflecting resolutions/ decisions taken by KMC qua their status in the said Premises, point out that they cannot be treated as Unauthorised Occupants so long as the status of R4/the Bengal Properties as the original Lessee continues to be recognized by law. Mr. Shaktinath Mukherjee, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the mere pendency of the said Eviction Case or, the mere subsistence of a Notice to Evict cannot automatically treat the originally lessee, in this case the Bengal Properties, to be evicted from the said Premises.
6. Relying on the authority of In Re: Ganesh Trading Company Private Limited as reported in AIR 1985 Calcutta 37, Ld. Senior Counsel points out that till the original lessee is actually evicted, such original lessee cannot be deemed to have lost and/or forfeited its rights and obligations as the lessee. In other words, the original lessee would continue to exercise its functions such as collection of rents from the sub-lessees/ tenants till such time the lease is determined by actually evicting the original lessee.
7. Mr. Mukherjee submits that in the present case the notice of eviction has been served and the Eviction Case is pending before R1/FLAC. Therefore, the paramount Title Holder, in this case KMC, has not executed the eviction proceeding and the rights of the original lessee/ the Bengal Properties stand preserved. As a consequence thereof, the rights of the present petitioners acting as sublessees/tenants of the original lessee/ i.e. the Bengal Properties also stand preserved. Axiomatically, at this stage without the final determination of the status of the lessee/ the Bengal Properties, the petitioners cannot be subjected to any drastic action.
8. The additional point argued on behalf of the petitioners is that notwithstanding the expiry of the lease in 2005
