Calcutta High Court
Suprova Basu & Others vs Colonel Mohit Mahalanobis & Another on 18 May, 2011
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION GA No. 3030 of 2010 GA No. 859 of 2011 EC No. 221 of 2010 SUPROVA BASU & OTHERS
-Versus-
COLONEL MOHIT MAHALANOBIS & ANOTHER
For the Decree-holders Mr Surojit Nath Mitra, Sr. Adv.,
in EC No. 221 of 2010: Mr Dhruba Ghosh, Adv.,
Mr Kaushik Mondal, Adv.,
Mr Rupak Ghosh, Adv.,
Mr Debasish Mukherjee, Adv.
For the Applicant Mr Jahar Chakraborty, Adv.,
in GA No. 3030 of 2010: Mr Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.,
Mr Sandip Kr. Datta, Adv.
For the Landlady of the Applicant Mr Saikat Basu, Adv.,
in GA No. 3030 of 2010: Mr Abhishek Halder, Adv.,
Ms Soma Samanta, Adv.
For the Administrator: Mr Joy Saha, Adv.,
Mr Reetobrata Mitra, Adv.,
Mr D. Mitra, Adv.
For the Applicants Mr Alokesh Dalai, Adv.
in GA No. 859 of 2011:
Hearing concluded on May 16, 2011:
BEFORE
The Hon'ble Justice
SANJIB BANERJEE
Date: May 18, 2011.
2
SANJIB BANERJEE, J. : -
The real action - or, the fun and games, depending on the perspective - generally begins after a decree is passed. And if the decree is one for eviction in respect of a prime commercial property, the only action begins when the decree is put into execution. So has it been in this case: a new suit and two applications which are veritable suits have sprouted immediately upon an eviction decree being attempted to be implemented.
EC No. 221 of 2010 is for execution of the eviction decree of 2009 affirmed in appeal in the year 2010 arising out of a suit filed in the year 1995. The decree has been passed against the only defendant in the relevant suit: an administrator appointed by the Court in the year 1980 to supervise Everest Building, a prime commercial high-rise on Chowringhee. The schedule to the decree describes the premises covered by the decree to be as follows:
"Flat No. B having an area more or less of 570 square meter along with open space on the Eastern, Southern and Western side as terrace on the 21st floor of Everest being on premises No. 46C, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta - 700 071 containing 4 (four) Rooms, Bathroom, block, partial entrance cum stair case landing lobby, along with all common facilities constituent in all the floors of the building or that the facilities provided, commonly to all/or individual flat owners of the said building, including the proportionate right of ownership over the undivided portion of the land in the premises 46C, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta - 700 071 butted and bounded on the North by part of the parapet walls, flat 21A, staircase wall, on the East by brick wall common with the toilet block and stair case walls and part of parapet wall at 21st floor level, on the South along entire length of the total parapet wall stretching from one corner to the other corner at 21st floor level, on the western side along with its entire length by the total parapet wall stretching from one corner to the other corner."
The decree was made on June 15, 2009 and the appeal therefrom was dismissed on June 14, 2010.
3Three sets of objections were carried to the execution though, in all fairness, it must be said that the judgment-debtor has not resisted the execution but he has merely presented his plight before the Court for the Court to relocate him and his papers. Of the two principal objectors, a group of flat-owners or occupants at the commercial building that claims the terrace to be for common use of all flat-owners has now not pressed its claim. The challenges that survive are by a company by the name of Pacific Computer Data Processing Pvt. Ltd, which has claimed a portion of the covered space that falls under the schedule to the decree; and, an apology of an application by some of the occupants of the building claiming joint rights to the 21st floor.
The administrator was appointed in CS No. 343 of 1979, which is one of several suits relating to administration of buildings that languish in this Court for years without end as if the Court is obliged to be in perpetual superintendence thereof. At the initial stage of the execution proceedings, between the general refrain that he should not be perceived to be standing in the way of a decree affirmed in appeal by this Court, the administrator pointed out the myriad problems that he faced and called upon the Court to provide an alternative accommodation for him to house the many files and papers that he had collected and preserved over the three decades and a bit that he has supervised the building and its maintenance at the Court's behest. The decree- holders have been uncharitable in their suggestion that the administrator has very politely and obediently attempted to thwart the decree as a sequel to the robust defence of the suit. They needlessly read some mischief in the administrator's attempt to place the onus on Court or else let the baby be thrown out with the bathwater. The decree-holders have ascribed motives to the administrator who, in turn, is steadfast in his stand that all that he has done is for the proper administration of the building at the Court's calling. By an order dated May 16, 2011 passed in the original suit, the administrator has been discharged subject to handing over the records and monies to any person or body entitled thereto.
4CS No. 61 of 2010 is a suit by several flat-owners or occupants at the building asking for the decree, insofar as it relates to the common area on the terrace at the 21st floor at the building, to be set aside. The applications by the plaintiffs in such suit, whether in that suit or in the execution proceedings, held up the execution for several months. Such plaintiffs have subsequently not shown interest in pursuing the matters. As a result, some of the applications seeking to resist the decree have been dismissed. The applications in CS No. 61 of 2010 have been adjourned.
GA No. 3030 of 2010 is an application in the execution proceedings by company Pacific to resist the decree-holders' attempt to obtain possession of a part of the property covered by the schedule to the decree which is under the occupation of Pacific. GA No. 859 of 2011 is an application by some of the occupants of the building claiming rights in respect of the decretal premises and seeking to be examined pro inter esse suo.
As is the case in similar suits for administration of multi-storied buildings, residential or commercial, the plaintiffs in the suit of 1979 have taken no steps for bringing it to trial. As a consequence, the administrator had continued for over three decades and had, in a manner of speaking, a run of the building. There is no immediate grievance of inadequate maintenance of the building or of any lack of services thereat and, to such extent, the administrator needs to be commended. But in the manner of the administrator having apparently dealt with some of the unoccupied areas or common portions, allegations have flown thick and fast with each set of parties insinuating that the administrator had sided with the opposing parties to confer undeserving benefits on them.
Pacific claims to be a tenant under one Puspa Rani Sethi in respect of "room No. 21A comprising of two rooms ear marked as 21A(1) and 21A(2) and/or 21A(1) and 21(B) measuring about 700 sq.ft. and 300 sq.ft. respectively in all 1000 sq.ft." (paragraph 2 of Pacific's petition). Pacific says that the said rooms 5 had been let out by Sethi prior to 1988 to a company by the name of Asian Computer Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. The second petitioner in Pacific's application is a director of Pacific who claims to have been the secretary of Asian Computer Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd. Though Pacific claims to have come into possession of the tenanted premises pursuant to an agreement of March 12, 1994, its petition refers to letters exchanged in respect of what Pacific claims to be the same premises at the time Asian Computer was in occupation thereof. These letters, according to the petition, had been preserved by the second petitioner director who was then associated with Asian Computer. Pacific has made no attempt to deny that the two corporate entities belong to the same stable. The letters of August 20, 1988 and September 17, 1988 were issued by Sethi to the administrator. In the first letter Sethi insisted that she had purchased an area measuring 1,000 sq.ft from one Western Building Corporation which promoted the building. She asserted that she was the owner of two rooms which measured 1,000 sq.ft and these had been given out on rent to Asian Computer. She reminded the administrator that she had paid on account of the generator development fund of the building on the basis of her entitlement to a 1,000 sq.ft space. Though the letter of July 15, 1988 to which Sethi's letter of August 20, 1988 was a reply has not surfaced in course of the proceedings, it is evident from the reply that the administrator had asserted that the area owned by Sethi on the 21st floor measured 700 sq.ft and not 1,000 sq.ft. The second letter of September 17, 1988 was in continuation of the controversy that then raged between the administrator and Sethi as to the extent of the floor space that Sethi was entitled to on the top floor of the building.
The decree-holders have been quick to pounce on both Pacific and the administrator on the basis of Pacific disclosing such letters. The decree-holders contend that copies of such letters were not marked to Asian Computer and it would be evident from the scribbling and initials on both letters that the copies of such documents appended to Pacific's petition were obtained from the 6 administrator's records. The administrator present in Court has admitted the handwritten notings and the initials appearing in such documents to be his.
Pacific refers to the agreement of March 12, 1994 and to several other documents appended to its petition to demonstrate that its tenanted premises had been variously described as "21A(1) and 21A(2)" or "21A(1) and (2)" or "21A(1) and 21(B)." The point that Pacific makes is that there was no hard and fast numbering of the area under its occupation and it had been diversely described by its owner. Pacific says that the moot point is that the March 12, 1994 agreement provided that a total area of 1,000 sq.ft had been let out to it and it is such 1,000 sq.ft area that Pacific continues to occupy. Indeed, the recital and the habendum clause of the March 12, 1994 agreement refer to the schedule thereto and the schedule mentions the figure of 1,000 sq.ft though it is blank in the more complete description of the property with reference to the spaces that abut it.
Again, the decree-holders spoil Pacific's party by referring to the same recital and the habendum clause that Pacific has brandished. The decree-holders are scathing in their criticism of Pacific's conduct of not appending the plan referred to the agreement of March 12, 1994. The decree-holders smell mischief in such minor omission and see a sinister design in the averment at paragraph 8 of Pacific's petition that the copy of the plan was not made a part of the agreement. The decree-holders suggest that it would be naïve to accept that a part of the floor was let out under a written agreement that referred to a plan but the plan did not accompany the document. They argue that any prudent tenant would have immediately sought the plan if, despite a reference in the agreement that it was appended thereto, it did not form a part of the document. The decree- holders say that, at the very least, the recent, post-decree correspondence ought to have reflected that the plan had not originally been made over by Sethi to Pacific. They discredit the averment at paragraph 8 of Pacific's petition by referring to Sethi's letter of November 21, 2009 and Pacific's response thereto of 7 November 30, 2009, copies whereof are included in Pacific's petition. In the letter of November 21, 2009 Sethi refuted the allegations made by Pacific in an earlier letter that Pacific was in occupation of flat no. 21B under Sethi. She demanded that Pacific produce any agreement by which she had let out any part of flat no. 21B to Pacific and asserted that flat no. 21B did not belong to her at all. She reiterated that she had let out flat no. 21A to Pacific comprising two rooms and an open space "marked with map which was given to you." She enclosed a copy of the map with her letter of November 21, 2009. Sethi is now 86 and her husband a gallant 97 (the husband's age has been furnished by counsel representing Sethi). Sethi's letter of November 21, 2009 asserted that flat no. 21A was let out to Pacific on the recommendation of a certain Kapoor who was the father-in-law of the managing director of Pacific. She rued the low rent that she received for the flat but said she had no regrets since Kapoor was a "dear family friend." She expressed anguish at Pacific making malicious claims. Sethi signed off the letter with this innocent bombshell encapsulated in the first sentence and the indifference captured in the following:
"I have learnt this room (presumably, a room forming part of flat no. 21B) was taken over by Asian Computer from the Administrator which was ultimately taken over by you. However, this does not concern me at all."
Pacific's reply of November 30, 2009 to Sethi acknowledged the receipt of a coloured copy of a sketch-map but contested the area demarcated in the sketch as the tenanted premises. The decree-holders play naughty once again in submitting that though there was no assertion by Pacific in the letter of November 30, 2009 that a plan of the tenanted premises has not been made available to Pacific earlier, Pacific may have felt the difficulty in carrying its present plea to court and which is why the averment was slipped into paragraph 8 of the petition. Sethi's exasperation is evident from her following letter of December 14, 2009 wherein she insisted that the copy of the map forwarded by her to Pacific bore the signature of an official of Western Building Corporation (from whom Sethi acquired flat no. 21A) and that the relevant area was marked 8 with a yellow border. Sethi has used an affidavit in the present proceedings and a copy of the old, faded sketch forms part of it. If one looks at the sketch from the east, the tenanted area is the covered space to the right of the northern staircase and the open area to the further right or north thereof. The decree-holders have not claimed this area to be part of the portion covered by the decree. The northern-most extremity of the decree-holders' claim runs along the outer staircase wall that extends westwards beyond the northern staircase. The disputed portion is the area where a person using the northern staircase would run into after climbing the stairs if it were not walled up at the landing.
Pacific's case is built around two myths: the first is in the mistaken reference to the second room in flat no. 21A as no. 21B in some correspondence and the other is in the tenancy agreement referring to the tenanted area to be of 1,000 sq.ft in its incomplete schedule. It is clear from the documents furnished that Sethi had always claimed flat no. 21A to be her own and never made any claim in respect of flat no. 21B. It is necessary in the present context to appreciate the layout of the 21st floor. There are two staircases on the eastern side of the building. The northern staircase leads up to what is now a small landing on the 21st floor. From the sketch maps relied upon by the parties and, in particular, the sketches painstakingly prepared by the receiver appointed in the present proceedings, it appears that there is a door from the landing of the northern staircase on the 21st floor immediately in front and another door immediately to the right as one climbs the stairs. The door to the right leads to a space which stretches from the eastern extremity of the building to the western end of the covered space on the 21st floor. The southern wall of such space is partly the northern wall of the staircase and partly the extension of the staircase wall to the west beyond the landing. The receiver's report of January 6, 2011 shows that this office space on the 21st floor which is flanked on its southern side by the staircase wall and the extension of the staircase wall beyond the landing, may be two rooms rather than one since there is a ten-inch brick wall from south to north down the middle of this space with an opening in the north and another 9 opening in the south. Indeed, the reports filed by the receiver would suggest that there was a brick wall partition in this office space to the north of the staircase wall running along the staircase wall from the eastern edge of the building to the western edge of the covered area on the 21st floor which may have been breached to create the openings. In fact, the floor levels on the two sides of the partition wall bear a six-inch difference.
Pacific's agreement with Sethi refers to two rooms in its first recital. The body of the agreement of March 12, 1994 does not refer to the area of the two rooms; the schedule to the agreement mentions 1,000 sq.ft but does not identify the boundaries of the demised premises. The agreement refers to a plan and Sethi's recent letter of November 29, 2009 also speaks of a map which had been made available to Pacific. A copy of the plan was again forwarded to Pacific under cover of such letter. Pacific acknowledged the receipt of the sketch map in its reply of November 30, 2009 and did not deny that Sethi had earlier provided a map of the space let out. Sethi's affidavit filed in the present proceedings includes a faded sketch map at page 21 and another sketch at page 22. It is submitted on behalf of Sethi that though the map at page 21 (signed by the substituted second defendant in the decree-holders' suit) demarcates Sethi's area on the 21st floor to be the entirety of the area, including the covered portion on the northern side of the 21st floor, comprising all the space to the north of the wall of the northern staircase stretching from the eastern extremity of the building to the western edge, she claims only the covered area to the north of the staircase wall and its extension to the west upto the edge of the covered area of the 21st floor and the open terrace to the immediate north thereof. In other words, Sethi claims the rectangular block immediately to the right of the staircase wall and its extension on the western side upto the end of the constructed area to the west on the 21st floor including the uncovered area to the immediate north of the covered area upto the northern parapet wall. Sethi does not claim the northwest rectangular part of the terrace that stretches westwards 10 beyond the imaginary line connecting the northwest corner of the covered area to the northern parapet wall on the 21st floor.
The decree-holders have no problem in accepting what Sethi has claimed since they seek the rest of the 21st floor other than the space claimed by Sethi, the staircase landings and the lift machine room to the immediate south of the southern staircase. The decree-holders insist that it would be evident from the sketch plan of the 21st floor tendered in evidence by them in CS No. 155 of 1995 that the area on the 21st floor enclosed in a red border in such map excludes the area claimed by Sethi, the two staircase landings and the lift machine room to the immediate south of the southern staircase.
The receiver was appointed in course of the present proceedings to report on the state of the 21st floor, the occupation thereat and to make an inventory of whatever was in the possession of the administrator in the area under the administrator's occupation. The receiver has filed five reports most of which deal with the inventory of what was found in the administrator's office. The dispute raised by Pacific relates to that portion of the 21st floor which is to the immediate west of the landing of the northern staircase and includes the part of the landing to the south of where the northern staircase opens up. The southern part of the landing of the northern staircase under Pacific's occupation, whether or not Pacific is entitled thereto, cannot be taken up for consideration since the decree- holders do not claim this to be covered by the decree. It is, however, the room to the immediate west of the landing of the northern staircase that the decree- holders claim and which the receiver has found to be in Pacific's possession that falls for consideration. This room has a door from the landing and its eastern extremity is the wall at the end of the landing; its western limit is the edge of the constructed area just short of the terrace on the 21st floor; its northern edge is the wall extending to the west from the wall to the north of the northern staircase; and, its southern boundary is the southern wall of the landing of the northern staircase as extending to the west up to the end of the covered area on 11 the 21st floor. The internal measurements of the room are 20ft from east to west and 14.5 ft from south to north.
Sethi has disowned this room and says that she did not create any tenancy in favour of Pacific in respect of such room as it was not hers to start with. It is evident that the other longish room (or the two rooms) to the north of the northern staircase wall and stretching to the western end of the constructed area on the 21st floor was the entirety of the covered area that Sethi was entitled to and she claims to have demised in favour of Pacific. This apparent longish room, in fact, comprises two rooms as is evidenced by the brick-built partition wall which still exists and the two rooms are made out by the difference in the floor levels. The agreement of March 12, 1994 between Sethi and Pacific was in respect of these two rooms which have their southern extremity as the northern wall of the northern staircase continuing beyond the landing and to the end of the constructed area of the 21st floor. Despite the mistaken reference of 1,000 sq.ft in the incomplete schedule to that agreement, it is evident that no more than these two rooms, now sought to be passed off by Pacific as one, was the tenanted premises under the March 12, 1994 agreement. The position would have been clear if Pacific had produced the map that was referred to in the agreement, since it is apparent from the recent correspondence that Pacific had been furnished the same map which was forwarded under cover of Sethi's letter of November 21, 2009 at the time that the March 12, 1994 agreement was executed.
Pacific has tried to take undue advantage of the mistaken reference to one of the two rooms in office space no. 21A in the correspondence exchanged with Sethi and in the incomplete schedule of the agreement of March 12, 1994. Pacific has not claimed to be in possession of any part of the terrace and it is not necessary to consider here as to whether Sethi had demised unto Pacific the entirety of the area that Sethi owned on the 21st floor. Again, since the decree- holders do not claim that part of the terrace to the immediate north of the covered area on the 21st floor and Sethi does not claim that part of the terrace in 12 the northwest corner thereof that appears to be mistakenly shown as part of Sethi's area in this sketch map appearing at page 21 of Sethi's affidavit, there can be no dispute as between Pacific and the decree-holders as to the decree- holders' right to claim possession of such part of the terrace that appears to be covered by the decree.
Since the theatre of dispute, as between Pacific and the decree-holders, is restricted to the 20ft by 14.5ft room to the west of the landing of the northern staircase, it is now necessary to assess the right canvassed by Pacific to hold on to such room despite it being apparently covered by the decree. There is no doubt that since the decree was on the basis of the decree-holders being entitled to possession against the administrator - and not on the basis of the decree- holders' title to the decretal premises - if Pacific can establish its right to possession in respect of such 20ft by14.5ft room independent of the administrator, the decree-holders have to be denied possession thereof. To begin with, Pacific asserts its right in respect of such room under the tenancy agreement with Sethi. That has already been found to be without basis as the 20ft by14.5ft room is neither claimed by Sethi to be owned by her nor does it appear to be part of her entitlement as appearing in this sketch map at page 21 of Sethi's affidavit. Yet, the matter cannot rest there. It is possible that Pacific is a rank trespasser in respect of such room and since the decree did not decide the decree-holders' title in respect thereof but was merely based on the decree- holders' right to possession thereof as against the administrator, a rank trespasser who was not a party to the decree could have resisted the decree- holders' claim of possession thereof. The only opening for the decree-holders to be entitled to such room would be if they could show that Pacific's possession of the room was under the administrator.
The focus now shifts to a letter of June 4, 1987 addressed by the administrator to Asian Computer. Pacific has made no bones about Asian Computer and Pacific being sister concerns under the control of the same person 13 or group of persons. The letter of June 4, 1987 was issued by the administrator to Asian Computer in response to a request made by the company on June 2, 1987. It is evident from the letter that Asian Computer was then in possession of flat no. 20E of the building and wrote to the administrator for a temporary alternative accommodation during the period that the company's 20th floor office was being renovated and a computer system installed thereat. The second paragraph of the administrator's letter of June 4, 1987 to Asian Computer provided, " A space on the 21st floor is being provided temporarily for storing the electronic Data Entry Machines. You will have to vacate the place at short notice whenever asked to do so. Additional maintenance charges will be payable by you for the duration you use the office space temporarily."
The administrator present in Court has confirmed such position that it was such space that he permitted Asian Computer to temporarily possess what is now the 20ft by 14.5ft room under the occupation of Pacific. The decree-holders have appended a copy of a document tendered in evidence in course of CS No. 155 of 1995 as annexure G to their affidavit-in-opposition in GA No. 3030 of 2010. The document had emanated from the administrator and the administrator present in Court has acknowledged such fact. The document shows the areas under occupation of various persons other than the administrator in relation to municipal tax paid on their behalf. Not all owners or occupants at the building are, however, shown in the document. Item no. 52 in such document refers to flat no. 21A which is said to measure 700 sq.ft. Item no. 53 refers to flat no. 21B which is said to measure 300 sq.ft. Flat no. 21A and its 700 sq.ft area is approximately the area of the covered portion of which Sethi is the owner. The 300 sq.ft area in respect of Flat no. 21B for which municipal tax was collected appears to be the 20ft by 14.5ft room that was originally made available by the administrator to Asian Computer and is now under the possession of Pacific.
14It is undeniable that Pacific holds the 20ft by 14.5ft room under the administrator. The decree against the administrator on the basis of possession would cover Pacific since Pacific claims possession under the administrator. In any event, since the administrator has been appointed by Court and it is now evident and stands admitted by the administrator that Asian Computer had been permitted to occupy the 20ft by 14.5ft room by the administrator, the Court can undo the administrator's act if any other person is prejudiced thereby. Clearly, Asian Computer overstayed the temporary invitation and Pacific, a sister concern of Asian Computer, has now come to be in possession of the room. Pacific has been unable to demonstrate any basis to resist the decree-holders' immediate entitlement to possession in respect of the 20ft by 14.5ft room on the 21st floor.
This order would be incomplete if not read with the previous orders passed in the execution proceedings and the connected matters. There is, in particular, an order of March 10, 2011 which was passed at a time when the resistance to the decree was much more strident than it is now. That order was made upon it being evident that till the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code by the plaintiffs in CS No. 61 of 2010 was disposed of, possession of the decretal premises could not be made over to the decree-holders. But the robust challenge to the implementation of the decree by the other occupants of the building, on the ground that they have joint rights to the 21st floor, has now fizzled out. By the order dated March 10, 2011 the receiver appointed in the matter was directed to take physical possession of the 21st floor of the building which was covered by decree. The relevant part of the order provided as follows:
"Since it is evident that Pacific may not be entitled to resist the execution as Mrs. Puspa Rani Sethi claims an altogether different part of the twenty-first floor and since the Administrator cannot even be heard to question the appellate decree by the Court which has appointed him as Administrator, it is necessary that the Receiver appointed in the execution proceedings immediately take physical possession of the twenty-first floor of the Everest Building which is covered by the decree being the subject matter of EC No. 221 of 2010 and is in the possession of the Administrator. The Receiver should not meet any resistance since 15 the Administrator is in occupation, but should the Receiver meet the slightest resistance from the Administrator or any other person, the Receiver is permitted to obtain necessary assistance from the Deputy Commissioner of Kolkata Police (Central) to ensure that all belongings are removed from the decretal premises and the Receiver is given free and vacant possession thereof. For the moment, the Receiver will not disturb Pacific's possession, but Pacific will remain restrained from creating any rights or parting with possession of any part of the twenty- first floor that it is in possession of in favour of any other person."
The receiver is now in possession of the portion of the 21st floor of the building that is covered by the decree, though a part of it continues to be occupied by Pacific. The receiver is directed to immediately make over possession of the 21st floor space that she obtained from the administrator, to the decree- holders.
Since it is now found that Pacific is not entitled to possession of any part of the decretal premises, the receiver is directed to ensure that the possession of the 20ft by 14.5 ft room on the 21st floor is made over to the decree-holders within a fortnight from date. In the event Pacific does not remove itself or its material from such 20ft by 14.5ft room on the 21st floor within ten days from date, the receiver will take possession of the room under authority of this order and make over the same to the decree-holders with the decree-holders being obliged to store Pacific's property for a period of four weeks from the date of obtaining possession and being at liberty to dispose of the same thereafter if not taken away by Pacific. In such event, Pacific will have no claim against the decree-holders for any property that it may have left in the room.
The decree-holders will remain restrained, for a period of eight weeks from the date of their getting possession of the decretal premises, from creating any rights in favour of any person or parting with possession of any part of the decretal premises.
16GA No. 3030 of 2010 is dismissed with costs assessed at 1,000 GM to be paid to the decree-holders.
GA 859 of 2011 is an application by some of the occupants of the building seeking to be examined pro inter esse suo on the basis of their claim that they are owners or occupiers of flats and units at the building and their agreements give them joint rights of enjoyment of the 21st floor. The application has not been seriously pressed. In any event, an application of such nature cannot be entertained particularly when under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code there is specific provision for resisting the implementation of a decree relating to the possession of an immovable property. However, since the application has not been seriously pressed, the merits of the claim of the applicants need not be gone into. GA No. 859 of 2011 is dismissed with liberty to the applicants to apply under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code at a subsequent stage, if they are otherwise so entitled. There will be no order as to costs.
EC No. 221 of 2010 will now appear on June 15, 2011 to ascertain whether the possession of the decretal premises has been made over to the decree-holders so that satisfaction of the decree can be entered. The decree-holders will pay the receiver's final remuneration of 1500 GM. The receiver will stand discharged after obtaining her remuneration and submitting a final report to Court, without being required to file any accounts since she did not deal with any funds.
Urgent certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.)