O-86 GA No.560 of 2016 GA No.1658 of 2016 CS No.64 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction MANILAND ENCLAVE PVT.LTD.Versus M/S.ORIENT BEVERAGES LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 2nd November, 2016.
Appearance: Mr.Mainak Bose, Adv.Mr.Aniruddha Sinha, Adv.Mr.Ravi Kapoor, Adv.Mr.Kaushik Banerjee, Adv.Ms.Rashmita Sen, Adv.Mr.Sakya Sen, Adv.Mr.Priyankar Saha, Adv.Mr.Kaushik Saha, Adv.The Court : The defendant no.12 is not represented even at the second call.
The suit pertains to about 7395 sq.
of space on the seventh floor of a building at 50, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata-700 071.
The plaintiff claims as a lessor of the suit premises for 50 years from October 1, 2015.
The claim is made under a deed of lease dated March 31, 2001 by which the owners have apparently granted the lease in favour of the plaintiff upon the expiry of the then subsisting lease in favour of the fiRs.defendant.
The fiRs.defendant was made over possession of the suit premises under a lease of September 29, 1965 for a period of 50 yeaRs.The fiRs.defendant apparently inducted the defendant Nos.2 to 11 at the suit premises and the defendant Nos.2 to 11, in turn, inducted the defendant no.12 in a part thereof.
At the time of the institution of the suit, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant no.12 was in possession of the major portion of the suit premises and the defendant nos.2 to 11 in possession of a small part thereof.
Prior to the present suit being filed, the defendant nos.2 to11 had filed Title Suit No.1271 of 2015 before the City Civil Court at Calcutta, challenging the deed of March 31, 2001 executed by the owners in favour of the plaintiff herein.
In such suit, the present plaintiff was restrained from disturbing the possession of the defendant nos.2 to 11 herein at the suit premises.
Upon the present suit being launched, the defendant no.12 indicated its willingness to surrender possession of the part of the suit premises in its possession to the persons from whom such defendant had obtained possession thereof.
The same is recorded in a letter of April 12, 2016 issued by advocate for the defendant no.12 to advocates for some of the other parties.
A copy of such letter appears at page 25 of GA No.1658 of 2016.
According to the plaintiff – and which is also acknowledged on behalf of the defendant nos.2 to 11 – both the defendant no.12 and the defendant nos.2 to 11 handed over possession of the entirety of the suit premises to the plaintiff pursuant to the terms of settlement executed between the plaintiff herein and the defendant nos.2 to 11.
The terms were executed on or about May 12, 2016 and the second defendant confirmed by a letter dated May 12, 2016 that the possession of the suit premises had been made over by the second defendant to the plaintiff in accordance with the terMs.There is no dispute, at least as between the plaintiff and the defendant nos.2 to 11, that the plaintiff is now in possession of the entirety of the suit premises.
In GA No.560 of 2016, the usual orders restraining the lessees holding on to possession after the expiry of the lease were sought, including payment of municipal rates and taxes and occupation charges.
GA No.1658 of 2016 was filed on or about July 16, 2016 with a prayer for the terms of settlement between the plaintiff and the defendant nos.2 to 11 of May 12, 2016 to be taken on record.
Upon GA No.1658 of 2016 being filed, the fiRs.defendant protested by asserting that the Court should not endORS.the steps taken by some of the parties behind the back of the fiRs.defendant who was the lessee under the deed of September, 1965 and under whom the defendant nos.2 to 12 could claim.
The fiRs.defendant also says that the plaintiff and the defendant nos.2 to 11 are in breach of the initial order passed by the City Civil Court in TS No.1271 of 2015 and a recent order under which status quo as to possession has been directed to be maintained.
The fiRs.defendant, in short, asserts that the clandestine arrangement between the other parties to the suit should not be endorsed by this Court by leaving the fiRs.defendant in the lurch.
The defendant nos.2 to 11 also suggest that though they have made over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff, the terms of settlement were executed on their behalf on the mistaken appreciation of the factual position as presented by the plaintiff.
Such alleged mistake is denied by the plaintiff.
The primary object of the suit was to obtain possession of the suit premises.
As far as such primary relief is concerned, the Court need not go into the matter since the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit premises.
There are also claims regarding mesne profits and municipal rates and taxes, but since the principal object of the suit stands satisfied upon the plaintiff asserting that the plaintiff has obtained possession of the suit premises, the present suit is not necessary to be continued, though the plaintiff will be at liberty to seek the other reliefs by way of a fresh suit, if it is so advised.
As far as the present suit is concerned, CS No.64 of 2016 is disposed of along with GA No.560 of 2016 and GA No.1658 of 2016 by recording that the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff has possession and is in full control of the suit premises.
It is further recorded that such position as to possession has been acknowledged on behalf of the defendant nos.2 to 11.
Nothing in this order will prejudice the fiRs.defendant from asserting the fiRs.defendant’s rights under the lease of 1965 or right to immediate possession, in accordance with law.
Similarly, nothing in this order will prevent the defendant nos.2 to 11 from challenging the terms of settlement of May 12, 2016 or seeking to wrest back possession of the suit premises from the plaintiff on the ground of the terms having been executed on the mistaken appreciation of facts.
Nothing herein will affect TS No.1271 of 2015 pending before the City Civil Court at Calcutta or the orders passed therein.
It is also made clear that nothing in this order recognises any right of the fiRs.defendant or the defendant nos.2 to 11; it merely recognises their claims and such claims have to be assessed in the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc/bp