Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(1) In this revisional application the petitioner challenges orders dated 9 February, 2015 and 9 March, 2015 passed in Ejectment Execution Case No. 69 of 2014 by the Learned 6th Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta. By the said orders the Learned Court below directed the petitioner/decree-holder to hand over possession of the suit property to the opposite parties/judgment debtors upon recording an undertaking to the effect that the opposite parties will give back possession of the suit property to the petitioner within one month from the date of receiving notice that the petitioner has obtained possession of the remaining rooms in the suit building. The material facts of the case culminating in the present application are as follows.

(4) In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court recorded the petitioner's statement that it proposed to provide all the tenants with rooms on the ground floor of the re-constructed building.

(5) Armed with the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court the petitioner approached the learned Court below which, by a common judgment and order dated 23 November, 2007 decreed all the seven suits under Sec. 13(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (in short the 'WBPT Act'). The petitioner/plaintiff was directed to obtain the sanctioned plan from the concerned authority and to produce the same in Court to within three months. The defendant being the predecessor-in- interest of the opposite parties was directed to vacate the suit premises within one month from the date of production of the sanctioned plan by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was directed to put back the defendant in possession in the re-constructed building within one year from the date of delivery of possession by the defendant to the plaintiff. It was further ordered in case of any neglect or failure to deliver possession of the shop rooms either by the tenant/defendant or by the landlord/plaintiff within the stipulated period, possession will be delivered by putting the decree into execution on an application of either of the parties. (6) The petitioner gave production of the sanctioned plan to all the defendants including the said Md. Hasim. However, the said tenant refused to vacate the suit premises. The petitioner filed Ejectment Execution Case No. 86 of 2008 in the Small Causes Court at Calcutta and obtained vacant possession of the suit premises on 15 November, 2011. In 2014 the opposite parties (the original defendant being their father and predecessor-in-interest having passed away in the meantime) filed Ejectment Execution Case No. 69 of 2014 in the Small Causes Court at Calcutta claiming back possession of the suit premises from the petitioner. They contended that the eviction decree required the petitioner to put back the opposite parties in possession of the suit premises within one year from the date of obtaining possession from the opposite parties or their predecessor-in-interest. Since the petitioner failed to do so, that part of the decree was required to be executed through the process of Court. The impugned order dated 9 February, 2015 was passed on the said application of the opposite parties. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows:-

(8) Being aggrieved the petitioner/decree-holder has filed the present revisional application challenging the aforesaid two orders. When the application was moved, an interim order dated 8 May, 2015 was passed staying all further proceedings in Ejectment Execution Case No. 69 of 2014 till 31 July, 2015. On 19 June 2015 the said interim order extended till disposal of this application or until further order whichever was earlier.

(9) Appearing on behalf of the petitioner Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharjee, Learned Counsel submitted that apart from the opposite parties there are six other judgment debtors against whom execution cases were initiated. In case of three out of the six, possession has been obtained by the petitioner. In three remaining cases, possession is yet to be obtained by the petitioner by reason of various applications having been filed, e.g., under Sec. 47 and O. 21 R. 97 of the CPC. According to Learned Counsel, the period of one year within which the petitioner was obliged to rehabilitate the tenants in the re-constructed building, would commence from the date of all the tenants vacating the suit building. Since all the tenants have not yet vacated the suit building, the one year period has not begun to run and the order impugned is beyond the scope of the decree, submitted Learned Counsel. The landlord has the obligation of putting back the tenants in possession only in the reconstructed building. The landlord is doing everything to obtain vacant possession. Learned Counsel submitted that if the impugned order is allowed to stand, the other tenants from whom possession has been recovered through the process of Court will also pray for similar orders and if such orders are passed to put back the tenants in possession, the whole process and effort of obtaining vacant possession of the suit building will be nullified. Accordingly, learned Counsel prayed for quashing of the impugned order. (10) Appearing for the opposite parties, Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharjee, Learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the order under challenge is perfectly justified and calls for no interference. He referred to Secs. 18 and 18A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the relevant portions whereof read as follows:-

(11) Learned Counsel submitted that admittedly the petitioner obtained possession of the suit property from the opposite parties or their predecessor-in-interest on 15 November, 2011. As per the decree of eviction, the petitioner was obliged to put back the opposite parties in possession within one year from that date. However, the petitioner has failed to do so and has in fact, not even commenced reconstruction of the building. The petitioner must have been aware of the risk of some of the tenants not vacating even after the ejectment decree and resisting the execution of the decree in various manners. This was not an unforeseen risk. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to take shelter behind non-delivery of possession by some of the tenants of the portions under their occupation. There is a clear 'failure' on the part of the petitioner within the meaning of Secs. 18 and 18A of the WBPT Act, 1956 and hence, the learned Court below rightly applied the principles of the aforesaid sections and ordered restoration of possession to the opposite parties. He further submitted that the interest of the petitioner has been sufficiently protected by taking an undertaking from the opposite parties that they will handover possession of the suit property to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of notice that the petitioner has obtained possession of the remaining rooms and is ready for demolition of the old building and construction of the new building. Learned Senior Counsel prayed for dismissal of the revisional application. (12) I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. (13) The eviction decree in question directed the petitioner/plaintiff to put back the tenants in possession in the reconstructed building within one year from the date of delivery of the possession by the tenants to the petitioner. (Emphasis is mine). On a careful reading of the said direction it can only mean that the one year period would start running from the date when all the tenants have made over vacant possession of the petitioner as without the same the petitioner would not be in a position to start demolition and re-construction work. It is not that the petitioner is sitting idle after obtaining possession from the some of the tenants. The petitioner is pursuing the execution cases against other tenants. Indeed, the petitioner is gaining nothing by delaying demolition of the old building and putting up the proposed new building. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the petitioner having obtained vacant possession from some of the tenants is utilizing such space gainfully for other purposes. In my opinion, the petitioner cannot be faulted for not starting the demolition of the old building or reconstruction of the new building or for not putting the tenants who are out of possession back in possession in the new building. The petitioner is clearly prevented by sufficient cause from doing so. (14) The other point to be noted and on which great emphasis has been laid by Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is required to rehabilitate the tenants in the re-constructed building. There is no obligation of the petitioner to put back the tenants in possession in the existing building. If the petitioner has been unable to commence or complete reconstruction of the building for no fault of its own and for reasons beyond its control, it cannot be said that the petitioner has deliberately not commenced the re-building process and hence the principles of Sec. 18 of the WBPT Act, 1956 would not apply. Further the application for being put back in possession appears to have been made by the opposite parties or their predecessor-in-interest before the learned Court below much beyond the period prescribed under Sec.