Calcutta High Court
Karnani Properties Limited vs Kailash Prasad Jhunjhunwala & Anr on 13 January, 2017
Author: Shivakant Prasad
Bench: Shivakant Prasad
CS No.256 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
KARNANI PROPERTIES LIMITED
-Versus-
KAILASH PRASAD JHUNJHUNWALA & ANR.
Appearance:
Mr. Biswanath Chatterjee, Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Poddar, Adv.
...for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sarvarpriyo Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Arif Ali, Adv.
Mr. S. Sarawgi, Adv.
...for the defendant.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHIVAKANT PRASAD
Date : 13th January, 2017.
The Court : On perusal of the pleadings and suggested
issues submitted by the learned Advocates for the parties and upon
hearing them the following issues are framed :
1.Is the suit maintainable ?
2. Is the suit barred by laws of limitation ?
3. Is the suit barred by principles of estoppel or acquiescence as alleged in paragraph 14 of written statement ?
4. Was there any contract between the parties in respect of the alleged parking of cars in the compound at 2 Karnani Mansion behind the showroom or any other place in the compound ?
5. Whether the defendant has any right in respect of the compound inside Karnani Mansion or any portion which is adjacent to the back portion of the showroom situated at 25B, Park Street, Kolkata- 700 016 measuring an area of 4000 sq.ft. as pleaded in paragraph 7 of the plaint ?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages by the defendant to the tune of Rs.1 lakh including loss of value of iron pillars illegally removed by the defendant and its men and agents as pleaded in paragraph 9 of the plaint ?
7. Whether the defendants are lawful and bona fide tenant entitled to any protection under the Tenancy Act ?
8. Has Auto Enterprise been in continuous un-interrupted and exclusive possession of the rear open space abutting the tenanted showroom since inception of tenancy granted in 1956 for a period of more than 20 years to the knowledge of the plaintiff as alleged in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the written statement ?
9. Has the plaintiff by its conduct granted Auto Enterprises the right to park vehicles on the rear side frontage of the concerned showroom since 3 inception of tenancy granted in 1956 as alleged in paragraph 5 of written statement ?
10. Are the defendants wrongfully or illegally or without lawful authority parking new cars for fitting before delivery to the customers/purchasers on the area adjacent to the back side of the tenanted showroom at 25B, Park Street as alleged in paragraph 10 of the plaint ?
11. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a Decree for Permanent Injunction against the defendant nos.1 and 2 as sought for ?
12. To what other relief or reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case ?
List the matter 'for hearing' on 7th February, 2017.
(SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.) A/s.