Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 75
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.
Asif Latif – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
WPO 1 of 2023
Decided On : 18-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Arnab Dutt, Adv., Ms. Labani Dey, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Indranil Nandi, Adv., Mr. Sayak Konar, Adv., Ms. Reshmi Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Barnali Gantait, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing evidence to establish tenancy rights and the legal basis for the claim, highlighting the requirement for due process of law in tenancy disputes.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Tenancy Dispute - West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 - [West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997] - The court discussed the tenancy dispute and the legal provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. It highlighted the lack of evidence to establish the petitioner's right to the tenanted premises and the failure to prove continued tenancy rights, leading to the dismissal of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a Mandamus to restore possession of a shop room and other spaces, claiming to be the tenant after the demise of the previous tenant. The respondents disputed the petitioner's claim, stating that the premises were in possession of another entity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a legal basis for the claim of tenancy and lacked evidence to prove continued tenancy rights. The court dismissed the case due to the absence of material to establish the petitioner's right to the tenanted premises.
Issues: Dispute over tenancy rights, lack of evidence to establish the petitioner's right to the tenanted premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's failure to provide evidence of continued tenancy rights and lack of legal basis for the claim led to the dismissal of the case.
Final Decision: WPO 1 of 2023 was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to any party. Connected applications were also disposed of by the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for a Mandamus directing the Administrator General & Official Trustee (AG & OT) of West Bengal (respondent no. 2) to restore possession of the shop room and certain other spaces at premises no 56C, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata -16 to the petitioner. The petitioner also prays for a Mandamus and appropriate directions on the respondent no. 2 / AG & OT and the Officer-in-Charge, Park Street Police Station (respondent no. 3) from disturbing the peaceful physical possession of the petitioner in respect of the said shop room.
2. The parties before the Court are the petitioner, Asif Latif, the respondent nos. 2 and 3, as described above and the respondent no. 4, who is the Manager of the Armenian College & Philanthropic Academy situated at 56B, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata -16.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner claims that the petitioner's father, Abdul Latif, since deceased, was a monthly tenant of the shop room under the respondent no.4 and was in possession of the shop room at the time of his death. Counsel submits that the rent for the said space used to be given by Paramount Refrigeration Company which was the trade name under which the petitioner's father used to operate to the respondent no. 2 being the beneficiary in the tenancy arrangement. Counsel seeks to rely on documents of April and May, 1955 to show that a tenancy had been created in favour of the petitioner's father. Counsel claims that the respondent no. 2/AG & OT refused to accept rent after June, 1990 and that the rents were thereafter deposited to the Rent Controller by the heirs including the petitioner after his father's death.
4. Counsel complains that the heirs of Abdul Latif were in possession and occupation till 3rd December, 2022 when the respondent nos. 2 and 3 fixed a padlock on the shop room with the goods and articles related to the petitioner's business and that the petitioner was wrongfully restrained from the entering into the shop room. Counsel complains that the petitioner has been dispossessed from the shop room by the AG & OT without due process of law. Counsel further complains that the AG & OT's demand for enhanced rent is illegal under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. It is submitted that there is no decree of eviction from any competent Court and that a suit filed for recovery of possession by the AG & OT was dismissed for default by the learned Presidency Small Causes Court on 5th May, 2006 and the application for restoration was also dismissed on 27 June, 2006.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2/AG & OT submits that the recorded tenant in respect of the shop room, which forms the subject matter of the present proceedings, stands in the name of Paramount Refrigeration Company which was a proprietorship business owned by Abdul Latif. Counsel submits that no rent has been deposited in respect of the said shop room for more than 30 years and that one M/s Braganza & Co. is in exclusive possession of the said tenanted possession from where it was selling musical instruments.
6. Counsel submits that Mr. Braganza has been in exclusive possession of the shop from 20.11.2012 and all the employees working in the said shop room are employees of Braganza & Co. It is also submitted that an agreement was executed between M/s. Latif Nishan (India) Pvt. Ltd. and had taken the premises on a monthly rental basis of Rs. 35,000/- or 1% of the total gross sales as derived from the business. Counsel relies on the Minutes of the meeting held in the office of the respondent no. 2 AG & OT on 5.12.2022 between Mr. Braganza, Mr. Sahid Latif and the AG & OT.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4, namely, the Manager, Armenian College & Philanthropic Academy adopts and reiterates the argument made on behalf of the AG & OT with regard to the dispossession of the petitioner / present occupants of the shop. Counsel submits that the petition
