Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 1119
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
Karnani Properties Limited - Plaintiff
Versus
Karnani Mansion Residents’ Association & Ors. – Respondents
CS 8 of 2016
Decided On : 03-07-2024
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, Mr. Neelesh Choudhury, Ms. Anuradha Poddar, Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that subsequent court orders can nullify earlier directives, impacting the validity of actions taken based on those directives.
Headnote:
Circular - Property Rights - Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 - Sections 275 - The court found the circulars issued by the defendants illegal as they misinterpreted prior court orders and infringed on the plaintiff's property rights, leading to a declaration of nullity.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, owner of Karnani Mansion, challenged two circulars issued by tenant association defendants regarding collection of rent and maintenance fees, claiming they were illegal and void as they misinterpreted previous court orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had paid all dues to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and that the defendants' circulars were based on an outdated order that had lost its force due to subsequent rulings.
Issues: Whether the circulars issued by the defendants were valid and whether they had the right to collect rent and maintenance fees from the tenants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants' reliance on an outdated court order was improper, as subsequent orders had rendered it ineffective, thus invalidating the circulars.
Result: The circulars were declared null and void, and the defendants were restrained from collecting any fees or interfering with the plaintiff's rights.
JUDGMENT :
(Krishna Rao, J.) :
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration of the Circular dated 24th December, 2015 issued by the defendant no.2 and Circular dated 31st December, 2015 issued by the defendant no.3 are illegal, null and void and other allied reliefs.
2. On receipt of writ of summons, defendants entered appearance in the suit but have not filed written statement. The defendants have filed an application being G.A. No. 6 of 2022 praying for extension of time to file Written Statement. This Court by an order dated 1st September, 2023, disposed of the said application by extending time to file written statement within a week from the date of the order, subject to payment of Rs. 20,000/- but the defendants have neither paid the cost nor have filed any written statement. Therefore, by an order dated 9th February, 2024, this Court fixed the matter as undefended suit.
3. The plaintiff is the owner of Premises Nos. 21, 23, 25A, 25B, 27A, 27B, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 43, 45, 47, 55 and 57, Park Street, Kolkata which comprise approximately 160 cottahs of land. All the premises are adjacent to each other which comprises of 5 buildings commonly known as “Karnani Mansion”.
4. Karnani Mansion has been declared as a Grade –II, Heritage Building by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation on 25th February, 2009. Karnani Mansion is fully occupied by tenants of the plaintiff and several illegal occupants except about 400 sq.ft of area which is the office space of the plaintiff. There are total 175 tenants under the plaintiff and several occupiers aggregating to more than 300.
5. The plaintiff being the owner of the Karnani Mansion has been issuing car parking stickers to the tenants in order to regulate the ingress and egress of motor vehicles into Karnani Mansion as an incident of the tenancy rights. The plaintiff is also collecting rent/occupational charges from the tenants/occupiers.
6. The defendant no.1 claims to be an association of tenants/occupiers of the subject premises nos. 25A, 25B, 27A and 27B. The defendant no.2 is the General Secretary and the defendant no.3 is the Joint Secretary of the defendant no.1. The plaintiff never recognized the defendants or permitted the defendants to collect any money from the tenants/ occupiers of the subject premises.
7. The plaintiff has filed a Writ Application before this Court being WP No. 327 of 2001 wherein the plaintiff had challenged the Kolkata Municipal Corporation’s decision of re-valuation of the property without giving any opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. In the impugned notices dated 13th September, 2000 and 2nd February, 2001, the Municipal Corporation increased annual valuation of the subject premises. The writ petition filed by the plaintiff was disposed of by directing the Municipal Corporation to give an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff before taking any punitive decision against the plaintiff. The Hon’ble Court has also directed the plaintiff to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-with the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The plaintiff being aggrieved with the order has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench being APOT No. 430 of 2001, APO No. 444 of 2006. The Hon’ble Division bench has directed the plaintiff to pay Rs.49,00,000/-within a period of six weeks and in case the plaintiff deposited the said amount, the Municipal Corporation was directed to consider the representation of the plaintiff. In compliance of the order, the plaintiff has deposited an amount of Rs.49,00,000/-. Pursuant to the order hearing was given to the plaintiff and reassessment of the subject premises was done and the plaintiff has paid all corporation dues till 2007.
8. In the meantime, the defendant no.1 has filed a writ petition some times in the year 2002 against the Kolkata Municipal Corporation being WP No. 1619 of 2002 challenging the Notice dated 27th July, 2002, issued under Section 275 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 for disconne
