Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Under the lease agreements the Trust was to pay the municipal taxes. The Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 underwent amendments subsequent to deeds of lease. By reason of such amendments the defendant became liable to pay 50 per cent of the municipal tax and 100 per cent of the surcharge. The defendant however contended that it was not liable to pay the municipal tax and surcharge in spite of such amendment to the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. The then trustees of the Trust filed two writ petitioners before this Hon'ble Court. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by one judgment and order dated June 24, 1996. The then trustees filed two appeals F.M.A.T. No. 1977 of 1996 and F.M.A.T. No. 1978 of 1996. The appeals were disposed of by a judgment and order dated April 24, 1998. The Appeal Court held, inter alia, that the defendant was liable to pay the occupier's share of the taxes and surcharges. According to the plaintiffs, in terms of the judgment and order dated April 24, 1998 they are entitled to recover a sum of Rs.27,77,866.20p. along with interest from the defendant.

By Exhibit 'F' the Division Bench had disposed of two appeals preferred against two orders of the Trial Court passed in two writ petitions. The then trustees of the Trust had applied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief against the defendant with regard to the non-payment of arrears rent as well as municipal rates and surcharges. By Exhibit 'F' the Division Bench found that the defendant was statutorily liable to pay half portion of the municipal taxes and 100 per cent surcharge in view of the amendment introduced to the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. It has also been held that such statutory liability would prevail over Clause 12 of the lease agreement. The then trustees were granted liberty to realize the amount payable by the defendant. An amount had been quantified in Exhibit 'F'. The defendant filed an application for clarification of Exhibit 'F' which is marked as Exhibit 'G'. The plaintiffs had, thereafter, filed the present suit in 1999. The clarification application of the defendant being Exhibit 'G' was disposed of by a judgment and order dated April 4, 2000. This order has been marked as Exhibit 'H'. Exhibit 'H' demonstrates that the defendant has been directed to pay Rs.27,77,866.20p.

In such circumstance, the third issue is answered in the negative and against the defendant.

On the fourth issue learned Counsel for the defendant contends that, the Trust is not the plaintiff. Two persons claiming to be trustees have instituted the instant suit. In such circumstances, in absence of the Trust the suit is barred by non-joinder of necessary party. The Trust is a necessary party and is not the plaintiff in the suit.

Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the two plaintiffs are the present trustees. There were two trustees of the Trust at the institution of the suit. He refers to various questions and answers given by the witness of the plaintiffs in this regard.

The two trustees of the Trust have filed the instant suit as plaintiffs stating that they seek to represent the Trust. The plaintiffs have established that they are the trustees of the Trust. There is no evidence to the contrary on record.

The contention of the defendant that the Trust is not properly represented, although they are in the facts of this case, can be addressed in another manner. Exhibit 'F' finds the defendant liable to the Trust. Therefore, in the event the defendant pays the plaintiffs in terms of the decree passed herein, the same would constitute payment to the Trust.