Calcutta High Court
Sree Sree Iswar Gopinath Jew vs Bhola Nath Seth & Ors on 26 April, 2017
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
GA No.3086 of 2016
CS No.534 of 1932
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SREE SREE ISWAR GOPINATH JEW
-Versus-
BHOLA NATH SETH & ORS.
Appearance:
Mr. Indranil Nandi, Adv.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
Date : 26th April, 2017.
The Court : The applicants claim to be the sebaits of the deity Sri Sri Iswar Gopinath Jew. The applicants have filed this application for a direction upon the official receiver to grant a fresh lease in respect of the suit premises in favour of Sri Debi Prasad Sarkar and Gouri Prasad Sarkar, Prithwiraj Sarkar or their nominee or nominees or the assigns for a term of 50 years on terms and conditions mentioned in the draft deed of lease being Annexure-E to the petition.
It appears that the present lessees were inducted to the premises by an order dated 20th March, 2006 by which they were permitted to become the lessee for the residual period consequent upon Bihar Mining Corporation Pvt. Ltd., the original lessee, expressing its unwillingness to continue with the tenancy and was 2 willing to surrender the said lease provided fresh lease is granted to two of its directors, namely, Debi Prasad Sarkar and Gouri Prasad Sarkar on the same terms and conditions. The residual period is going to expire in the year 2023. The present lessees, in terms of the lease deed had been paying an increased lease rent and municipal taxes regularly. As on date there is an unexpired period of 7 years. The petitioners contend that due to increased costs of living and inflation, it has become difficult to defray all expenses of seba puja and unless the said lease rent is increased to Rs.8,500/-, it would be difficult for the petitioners to meet the expenses of seba puja and other ancillary expenses. It appears that the present rent is meagre compared to the area under occupation of the lessee. The said property is capable of fetching a much higher price. The official receiver, in my mind, ought not to have initially granted a lease for 50 years with such meagre rent. The official receiver ought to have been more prudent and careful in settling the terms and apprise the Court that the said property is capable of fetching much higher rent than it presently yield. Even the increase, as proposed, compared to the locality is meagre.
The petitioners have also not furnished details of the expenses incurred and, as such, it is not possible for this Court to assess the need for further augmentation of income and the necessity to have a fresh lease executed for a term of 50 years. 3 Even the proposed terms, in my view, would not be beneficial for the deity.
Under such circumstances, this application fails and stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) A/s.