Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10.Under these circumstances the present civil appeal by special leave has come to be preferred. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that in view of the statuts quo order dated September 15, 1988 regarding the fixed property in possession of the Durgapur Diocese no tenancy or sub- tenancy rights could be created. It was also urged that the said Somani Builders became sub-tenant under an agreement dated May 10, 1993. Such a subtenancy cannot be valid in view of the status quo order. It is somewhat strange that Somani Builders should make an oral application before the learned Single Judge. On the basis of that oral application, the order came to be passed in favour of Somani Builders directing the Special Officer to remove the padlock. As to what was the nature of the prayer, that too by a person who was not a party to anyone of these proceedings, is not known. Therefore, the removal of padlock at its instance, as directed by the learned Single Judge, was not warranted. As though to add insult to injury when the appellant was complaining about this order, the Division Bench went one step further and directed that possession be given to Somani Builders. This direction would amount to putting a premium on the illegality committed by the former alleged tenant A.K. Ghosh.

11.First of all, he had no authority to grant a tenancy. Even otherwise, since status quo order had been passed by the Court on September 15, 1988 the creation of sub-tenancy under the agreement dated May 10, 1993 would not confer Somani Builders with any right whatever. In contempt Jurisdiction an utter stranger to the proceedings cannot be put in possession, while the sole question was whether the parties had violated the order dated September 15, 1988. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

17.First of all, whether A.K. Ghosh was a tenant is itself in dispute. Secondly, whether A.K. Ghosh had a right to create a sub-tenancy is again in dispute. Thirdly, more than above all this, when the right of sub-tenancy was sought to be founded on an agreement dated May 10, 1993, it should have occurred to the learned Single Judge that such a creation of sub-tenancy was clearly violative of the order of status quo passed as early as September 15, 1988. It is extremely unfortunate that the learned Judge had not even cared to bestow a thought and entertained an oral application at the instance of a person who had nothing to do till then with the application for contempt. He had not even taken out an application to implead himself as a party. If mere oral mention could be enough to direct a Special Officer to remove the padlock, one has to put aside the law of procedure altogether and render justice as the court conceives, conferring benedictions on parties who cannot have any legal basis to found their claim.

18.Still worse was to follow. When the appellants before us complained of this direction by the learned Single Judge to remove the padlock, the Division Bench followed a novel procedure. We have already extracted its finding in relation to the validity of sub-tenancy. Having held in no uncertain terms whether or not the Somani Builders is lawfully a sub-tenant, cannot be decided in the proceeding, it should have thrown out the plea of Somani Builders. Why then the Joint Receivers were directed to allow Somani Builders to occupy the premises for the purpose of carrying on business passes our comprehension? The status quo is not a status quo as on the date of inventory but the status quo as of September 15, 1988. The order of that date states unequivocally "status quo as of today". That could only mean September 15, 1988 and there cannot be the state of affairs after five years of that order.