- (1.) The suit was filed in July, 2009 following a fire at Model House at 40, Strand Road, Calcutta. The plaintiffs 0are some of the occupants of Model House. The first defendant originally owned the entirety of Model House and is now, whether directly or through tenants, in occupation of a substantial portion of the building. The second defendant is an association of the occupants at the building that was almost defunct prior to the fire but appears to have been revived after orders passed in the suit. The third defendant is CESC Limited and the fourth defendant is the Director General of West Bengal Fire Services.
(2.) GA No.1795 of 2009 is the plaintiffs' original application for interlocutory reliefs on which orders have been passed from time to time. The initial order passed on July 10, 2009 was in the presence of the plaintiffs and the second and third defendants. The second defendant has always sided with the plaintiffs and it has been submitted by the other occupants who are represented that they should be seen as one. The order dated July 10, 2009 appointed an Administrator "for purposes of restoring supply (of electricity) in the said premises and maintaining the said premises as was done by the respondent No.1." The administrator was permitted to initiate talks with the third and fourth defendants and the third and the fourth defendants were directed to render all assistance to the Administrator. The order thereafter recorded: As the Administrator may not be able to visit the said premises on a day to day basis Mr. Sushil Saraf, one of the office bearers of the respondent No.2 will assist the Administrator for carrying out the day to day maintenance of the said premises. As there is none to look after the administration of the said premises the Administrator will take possession of the equipments, plant and machinery and lift in the said premises. As a temporary arrangement the maintenance charges be paid by the occupants of the said premises to the Administrator. This order is, passed as without funds in his hands it will be impossible for the Administrator to maintain the said, premises.
(3.) A subsequent order on the plaintiffs' application made on July 27, 2009 recorded that since the third defendant was willing to restore supply of electricity to the said premises upon certain formalities being fulfilled, the plaintiffs should comply with the formalities including obtaining a no-objection certificate from the fire department. Several orders were subsequently made on the plaintiffs' application, including a substantial order of August 26, 2009. On October 26, 2009, two other applications, GA No.2672 of 2009 and GA No.2781 of 2009, were taken up for the first time. GA No.2672 of 2009 is an application by one of the occupants at the building for leave to intervene in the proceedings. The other application is by the first defendant for the removal of Sushil Shroff and for rendition of accounts in respect of the monies collected on account of maintenance charges and other demands. Since the suit was instituted with leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code, the applicant in GA No.2672 of 2009 and other similarly placed persons in a subsequent application being GA No.2445 of 2010 have been heard.;