Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Vishwamitra Ramkumar vs M/S. Central Calcutta on 16 December, 2016
Author: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
Bench: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
1 47. 16.12.2016
mb In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.O. 4302 of 2016 M/s. Vishwamitra Ramkumar
-Vs.-
M/s. Central Calcutta Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Mr. Lutful Haque ... for the petitioner This revisional application at the instance of the petitioner decree-holder in seven eviction suits, is directed against the decision of the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Calcutta in an application filed by the opposite party no. 1 herein under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the Code"), being Misc. Case No. 70 of 2016, calling for all the records of the execution proceedings pending before the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta.
Shortly stated the facts giving rise to the present revisional application are that the petitioner, a registered partnership firm, is the owner of the building situate at Premises No. 16A, Radhabazar Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as "the said building"). Various portions of the said building were let out to seven tenants. One of the said tenants is the opposite party no. 2 in this 2 revisional application. The petitioner decided to demolish the said building and to construct a new building at the said premises after obtaining sanctioned plain from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The petitioner filed seven separate ejectment suits before the learned City Civil Court at Calcutta against the tenants of various portions of the said building claiming recovery of possession of various portions of the said building from the respective tenants. All the said suits were filed under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (in short "the said Act") on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiff-petitioner for building and re-building under Section 13(1)(f) of the said Act. All the said seven ejectment suits filed by the petitioner were rejected by the trial Judge. Against the said dismissal of each of the said seven suits by the learned trial Judge, the petitioner filed seven separate appeals before this Court, which were also rejected. The petitioner carried each of the order of dismissal of the appeal passed by this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing seven separate special leave petitions. By the common judgment dated April 05, 2007 the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed all the appeals filed by the petitioner and held that the petitioner, as the landlord, is entitled to decrees for eviction against the said seven tenants under Section 13(1)(f) of the said Act. By the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the learned trial 3 Court to expeditiously pass decrees and consequential orders in terms of Section 18A of the said Act, within three months of it being approached by the petitioner either with the existing plan or with the modified plan. In terms of the said judgment dated April 05, 2007 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Judge, 4th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, passed seven separate eviction decrees against the seven tenants including the opposite party no. 2 herein. In terms of the said eviction decrees, all the tenants of the said building were liable to vacate their respective tenanted portions of the said building and they were entitled to obtain possession of shop rooms in the new building to be constructed at the said premises as per the said judgment dated April 05, 2007 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner obtained a modified plan being sanctioned by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and produced the same before the learned trial Court. In spite of the said seven eviction decrees being passed, the tenants of the said building did not make over possession of the respective portions of the said building occupied by them to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner filed seven separate execution cases against each of the seven tenants judgment- debtors before the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta. The said execution applications were filed before the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta in view 4 of change of law. Out of the seven execution cases, the Court Bailiff has recovered possession of the respective portions of the said building, which were occupied by four tenants.
It appears that in spite of the petitioner having deposited appropriate fees for obtaining higher strength of police help, which was allowed by the executing Court, the petitioner is yet to obtain vacant possession of the respective portions of the said premises occupied by three tenants and one of them is the opposite party no. 2 herein. The opposite party no. 2, defendant judgment-debtor in the Execution Case No. 83 of 2008, all along resisted the execution of the eviction decree against it by the Court Bailiff. Now, the opposite party no. 1 herein filed an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code seeking to resist the execution of the decree passed against the opposite party no. 2 in Ejectment Suit No. 470 of 1988. The opposite party no. 1 is a company and it is claiming an independent right in respect of the portion of the said building let out to the opposite party no. 2. In the application under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code, the opposite party no. 1 failed to obtain any ad interim order of stay of the execution proceeding pending before the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta. Thereafter, when the application under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code filed by the opposite party no. 1 was fixed for peremptory hearing before the learned Judge, 6th bench, 5 Small Causes Court at Calcutta, the opposite party no. 1 filed an application under Section 24 of the Code, before the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Calcutta praying for, transfer of it to another Court.
It appears that by order dated March 29, 2016 the application filed by the opposite party no. 1 under Section 24 of the Code, being Misc. Case No. 70 of 2016 was admitted by the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Calcutta. Thereafter, by order dated June 29, 2016, the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Calcutta, called for all the records of Execution Case No. 83 of 2008 and the same have since been transmitted by the learned executing Court to the learned Court below. It appears that from March 29, 2016 till this date, the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Calcutta has been adjourning the hearing of the said application, Misc. Case No. 70 of 2016. However, in view of the fact that the all the records of the execution case No. 83 o 2008 has been transmitted to the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Calcutta without any effective hearing of the said Misc. Case No. 70 of 2016, the proceedings in the said execution case, being Execution Case No. 83 of 2008 has been stalled.
According to Mr. Lutful Haque, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, for the purpose of hearing of the said application under Section 24 of the Code, there was no necessity for the 6 learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Calcutta, to call for the records of the Ejectment Execution Case No. 83 of 2008.
He further submitted that from the records it appears that the persons of the opposite party no. 2 judgment-debtors are the two directors of the opposite party no. 1 company.
Having considered the averments made in the application under Section 24 of the Code, a copy whereof has been disclosed in this application, I find that there was no necessity for the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Calcutta to call for the records of the Execution Case No. 83 of 2008 pending before the learned Executing Court.
If the submission made on behalf of the petitioner in this revisional application that the persons of the opposite party no. 2 are the two directors of the opposite party no. 1, to be correct, then I find some substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner in this revisional application that the opposite party no. 1 is the alter ego of the opposite party no. 2, partnership firm. Be that as it may, I am told that the next date of hearing of the application under Section 24 of the Code, being Misc. Case No. 70 of 2016 is fixed for hearing before the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Calcutta on December 19, 2016. In view of the facts of the present case, already discussed above, the learned 7 Chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Calcutta is directed to conclude the hearing of the application filed by the opposite party no. 1 under Section 24 of the Code, being Misc. Case No. 70 of 2016, on the next date of hearing fixed on December 19, 2016 without granting any adjournment to either of the parties and to dispose of the said application before the ensuing Christmas Vacation.
It is made clear that if for any reason the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Calcutta, is not available on December 19, 2016 the learned Judge-in-Charge shall conclude the hearing of the application under Section 24 of the Code, being Misc. Case No. 70 of 2016, and to dispose of the same before the ensuing Christmas Vacation.
With the above directions, C.O. 4302 of 2016, stands disposed of.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Let a plaint copy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be handed over to the petitioner upon usual undertaking.
(Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.)