RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J. - (1.) The principal challenge in this petition is directed against the action of the respondent Municipal Authorities in sealing the gate and lift of a portion of premises no.4A and 4B, Chowringhee Place, Kolkata-30 ("the premises"). The divergent slant given by the parties to their respective cases requires their different versions to be narrated hereinbelow:- (a) The petitioners submit that they are in possession of the following portion of the premises: JUDGEMENT_24_LAWS(CAL)6_2020.htm (b) It is further alleged that the petitioners were inducted in the aforesaid portion of the premises by the private respondent no.6 as a tenant since 1 April, 2018. It is alleged that they are in settled possession and the impugned actions of the respondent authorities in sealing the gate of the premises constitutes an illegal and unlawful interference with their settled possession and the sealing is contrary to law and in violation of their constitutional rights.
(2.) The primary respondent being the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (the respondent no.1 herein) has vehemently contested the petition. In its affidavit-in-opposition, it has been alleged that: a) Premises nos.4A and 4B, Chowringhee Place, Kolkata-30 together with the building standing thereon are situated in the heart of Kolkata and The Kolkata Municipal Corporation is the owner of the entire premises together with the buildings standing thereon. On 6 October, 1906, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation granted a lease of (the then numbered premises no.13 Chowringhee Place, Kolkata) Premises no.4A and 4B, Chowringhee Place in favour of one Morest Edward Bandmann. That lease was by a registered indenture for 99 years. The original lessee had committed breaches of the terms and conditions of the lease and litigation ensued between the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and the original lessees. Ultimately, by an indenture dated 18 August, 1941 in respect of the unexpired residual period of the lease an assignment was executed in favour of Bengal Properties Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent no.6 herein) such assignment was executed with the consent and concurrence of the Allahabad Bank in whose favour a decree had by then been passed in Title Suit no.1334 of 1940. b) The lease in favour of the respondent no.6 expired by efflux of time on 10 October, 2005. Notwithstanding expiry of the said lease, the respondent no.6 continued to tender rent for the years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and the Municipal Corporation accepted such rent. c) Thereafter, the respondent no.6 filed a spate of litigations against the respondent Municipal authorities. The Municipal authorities appointed a Chief Valuer and Surveyor who initiated steps to offer a fresh lease in favour of the respondent no.6 on certain terms and conditions. Such action was assailed by the respondent no.6 who filed a writ petition [WP 974 of 2011] wherein a Learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court passed interim orders inter alia directing that the respondent Corporation would be free to decide the quantum which the respondent no.6 was liable to pay on account of premium upon granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.6. In view of such orders, several sittings were held for the purpose of fixation of quantum of lease premium on diverse dates by the Corporation. Sandip Kumar Dey and Associates, a valuer, was appointed for the purposes of fixing the quantum of lease premium to be paid by the petitioners. A report was also filed by the valuer who had opined that for a fresh lease of 99 years in respect of said premises the lease rent was fined at Rs.20,27,71,376.00 (Rupees Twenty crores Twenty Seven lacs Seventy One thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Six only). The matter was then taken before the Municipal Commissioner and thereafter before the Mayor-in-Council. Ultimately, in view of the recommendation, the Chief Valuer and Surveyor issued a notice dated 2 December, 2012 directing both the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.6 to deposit the said sum of Rs.20,27,71,376.00. d) Being aggrieved by the notice dated 2 December, 2012, the respondent no.6 filed another writ petition being WP 997 of 2005 wherein a Learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court, directed the respondent no.6 to deposit fifty per cent of the said sum mentioned in the impugned order within a particular time period. Being aggrieved by the order dated 2 December, 2012, the respondent no.6 preferred an appeal which was ultimately withdrawn by the respondent no.6. e) Thereafter, the respondent no.6 initiated another round of litigation challenging the valuation report dated 3 March, 2016 by the Municipal Authorities. In an interlocutory application filed in the writ petition, the Hon'ble Division Bench ultimately disposed of an appeal filed by the respondent no.6 observing that the respondent no.6 was neither agreeable to pay any amount nor deposit in the same. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Division Bench directed that an amount of Rs.5 crores be deposited by the respondent no.6. There was no compliance with that order by either the petitioner or the respondent no.6. f) It is next contended on behalf of the Corporation, that the respondent no.6 having failed to obtain any positive order in the different rounds of litigations which had been initiated and also choosing not to comply with any of the orders started unlawfully and illegally inducting third parties into different portions of the premises. There are also certain Minutes of the Mayor in Council, Kolkata Municipal Corporation which record that even after the orders of Court, the respondent no.6 had failed to deposit any sum on account of occupational charges. g) The KMC's further case is that the petitioner no.1 alleges to be a tenant under the respondent no.6 and alleges to have been inducted sometime in the month of April, 2018. It is further alleged on behalf of the Corporation that the entire story of the petitioner having been lawfully inducted is pure myth, sham and illusory. The petitioner's story of paying rent to the respondent no.6 has no authority of law. It is further alleged on behalf of the respondent Corporation that, the petitioner had been unlawfully and illegally running a guest house and hotel in its portion of the aforesaid premises. The respondent Corporation also contends that the respondent no.6 and the petitioner by collusion and conspiracy and connivance with each other have not only shown scant disregard for the orders of this Court but have unlawfully and illegally dealt with portion of the premises. After having failed to obtain any order in the several litigations the respondent no.6 had illegally and unauthorizedly inducted other third parties including the petitioner. h) In this background the KMC's case is that it is to protect, preserve and prevent transferring the premises that the respondent Corporation had taken the impugned actions because of the unauthorized, illegal and fraudulent dealing by the private respondent no.6 and the petitioner. It is further submitted by the respondent Corporation that there is not an iota of a legal right or a semblance of a right which the petitioner can show to demonstrate that the petitioner was lawfully inducted into any portion of the said premises. The petitioners have entered into the premises through the backdoor and in collusion and in connivance with the private respondent no.6. without the consent of the respondent Corporation.
(3.) The matter was heard on different dates and both the petitioner and the respondent Corporation were heard at length. The parties also chose to file their Notes of Submissions. It is important to mention that though from the order sheet it appears that initially (when the petition was filed) the respondent no.6 appeared at the hearings, that party was conspicuously absent during the final hearing of this petition.;