Calcutta High Court
Banasree Neogy & Anr vs Kartick Ch. Neogy on 10 December, 2014
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
ORDER SHEET
G.A. No. 2912 of 2014
C.S. No. 41 of 1989
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
BANASREE NEOGY & ANR.
Versus
KARTICK CH. NEOGY
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date : 10th December, 2014.
Appearance :
Mr. Sulagna Mukherjee, Adv.... for the plaintiff No. 1
Mr. Sakya Sen, Adv.
Mr. P.C. Paul Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Adv.
For defendant No. 3.
The Court : The application is by the substituted plaintiff for a direction upon the Receiver to furnish accounts, for change in the personnel of the Receiver and for preventing unauthorised ues and occupation of the suit premises and for making an inventory of the tenants and the rent paid by such tenant in respect of the property concerned. 2
The application was heard from time to time. I had requested the learned advocates to intimate the Receiver to be present. The learned Receiver is unwell and is unable to be present in the course of hearing of the suit. I had directed the accounts filed by the Receiver to be placed before me. On perusal of the accounts I find that the Receiver is collecting an aggregate sum of Rs.70,000/- per annum. It is submitted by the parties that about 30 cars are being parked in the open space of the premises everyday. Car parking spaces in any city more so, in Kolkata are in demand. The collection from such car parking is ridiculously low.
The learned Receiver because of his ill-health is unable to attend to the duties regularly. The estate is also not generating a large income to provide for a new Receiver. The present Receiver is drawing a remuneration of Rs.1200/- per month as will appear from the account submitted by the Receiver. The property requires protection and preservation. In order to facilitate a better income being generated out of the property, few modalities are put in place as provided in this order. The learned Receiver will appoint the defendant no. 3 as his agent for collecting rent issues and profits out of the suit premises for the first six months commencing from January 2015 and thereafter the substituted plaintiff will be appointed for the next six months as such. This arrangement will continue for every six 3 months until further orders of Court. Neither the learned Receiver nor any of the collecting agents appointed by him will have any authority to enter into any compromise or arrangement or agreement with any person with regard to the suit property be that even if such persons claims to be the tenant or licensee, except granting licence to persons to park vehicles for a disclosed condition.
Since the learned Receiver is presently in disposed of, the advocate-on-record for the substituted plaintiff and the defendant no. 3 are requested to make an inventory of the persons in occupation of the suit premises and to submit a report to this Court on January 7, 2015. It is submitted that a Receiver in respect of the suit premises was appointed in 1989. The suit property is, therefore, custodia legis. No person, therefore, is entitled to disturb the possession of the Receiver.
It is submitted that there are almost 30 nos. of cars parked at the suit premises and that the persons parking cars are licensee at best.
The Receiver and his collecting agent will endeavour to collect the highest licence fee per month in respect of a car that may be allowed to be parked at the suit premises. Every endeavour should be made by the Receiver and his collecting agent to collect a licence fee of at least @Rs.4,000/- per month per car. This figure of Rs.4,000/- is suggested by the substituted plaintiff. In the event of such rate of licence fee is not received by the 4 Receiver and his collecting agent, then the Receiver and his collecting agent will endeavour to obtain the next highest licence fee for a vehicle to be parked. The Receiver and his collecting agent will not create any right in favour of any person in any part or portion of the suit premises in any manner whatsoever, save and except allowing parking of vehicles at a disclosed consideration. The Receiver and his collecting agent will grant licence to park vehicles on a daily basis and will collect the licence fee on a monthly basis.
It is alleged by the substituted plaintiff that, the defendants are letting out the premises to the outsiders for holding parties and economics and the same is causing the substituted plaintiff disturbances and nuisance. None of the parties to the suit will be entitled to allow third parties to hold any party or function at the suit premises. In the event of any transgression in this respect by any of the parties the same should be brought to the notice of the Receiver immediately. The Receiver will take immediate action on such complaint being received.
The Receiver will be at liberty to approach local police station for appropriate police protection in order to implement this order. When such approach is made by the learned Receiver, the Officer-in-charge, Shyampukur Police Station is directed to render adequate police protection to the learned Receiver. 5
The parties are at liberty to explore the possibility of utilising the open space at the premises and the vacant area for letting out such spaces for holding of ceremonies by third parties. The parties before me submit that they have not created any tenancy in respect of any person to park their vehicles at the suit premises.
Remaining prayers of the substituted plaintiff in the application are kept open.
G.A. No. 2912 of 2014 is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) SBI