SANJIB BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THE real action " or, the fun and games, depending on the perspective " generally begins after a decree is passed. And if the decree is one for eviction in respect of a prime commercial property, the only action begins when the decree is put into execution. So has it been in this case: a new suit and two applications which are veritable suits have sprouted immediately upon an eviction decree being attempted to be implemented.
(2.) EC No. 221 of 2010 is for execution of the eviction decree of 2009 affirmed in appeal in the year 2010 arising out of a suit filed in the year 1995. The decree has been passed against the only defendant in the relevant suit: an administrator appointed by the Court in the year 1980 to supervise Everest Building, a prime commercial high-rise on Chowringhee. The schedule to the decree describes the premises covered by the decree to be as follows: "Flat No. B having an area more or less of 570 square meter along with open space on the Eastern, Southern and Western side as terrace on the 21st floor of Everest being on premises No. 46C, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta " 700 071 containing 4 (four) Rooms, Bathroom, block, partial entrance cum stair case landing lobby, along with all common facilities constituent in all the floors of the building or that the facilities provided, commonly to all/or individual flat owners of the said building, including the proportionate right of ownership over the undivided portion of the land in the premises 46C, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta " 700 071 butted and bounded on the North by part of the parapet walls, flat 21A, staircase wall, on the East by brick wall common with the toilet block and stair case walls and part of parapet wall at 21st floor level, on the South along entire length of the total parapet wall stretching from one corner to the other corner at 21st floor level, on the western side along with its entire length by the total parapet wall stretching from one corner to the other corner." The decree was made on June 15, 2009 and the appeal therefrom was dismissed on June 14, 2010. Three sets of objections were carried to the execution though, in all fairness, it must be said that the judgment-debtor has not resisted the execution but he has merely presented his plight before the Court for the Court to relocate him and his papers. Of the two principal objectors, a group of flat-owners or occupants at the commercial building that claims the terrace to be for common use of all flat-owners has now not pressed its claim. The challenges that survive are by a company by the name of Pacific Computer Data Processing Pvt. Ltd, which has claimed a portion of the covered space that falls under the schedule to the decree; and, an apology of an application by some of the occupants of the building claiming joint rights to the 21st floor. The administrator was appointed in CS No. 343 of 1979, which is one of several suits relating to administration of buildings that languish in this Court for years without end as if the Court is obliged to be in perpetual superintendence thereof. At the initial stage of the execution proceedings, between the general refrain that he should not be perceived to be standing in the way of a decree affirmed in appeal by this Court, the administrator pointed out the myriad problems that he faced and called upon the Court to provide an alternative accommodation for him to house the many files and papers that he had collected and preserved over the three decades and a bit that he has supervised the building and its maintenance at the Court"s behest. The decreeholders have been uncharitable in their suggestion that the administrator has very politely and obediently attempted to thwart the decree as a sequel to the robust defence of the suit. They needlessly read some mischief in the administrator"s attempt to place the onus on Court or else let the baby be thrown out with the bathwater. The decree-holders have ascribed motives to the administrator who, in turn, is steadfast in his stand that all that he has done is for the proper administration of the building at the Court"s calling. By an order dated May 16, 2011 passed in the original suit, the administrator has been discharged subject to handing over the records and monies to any person or body entitled thereto.
(3.) CS No. 61 of 2010 is a suit by several flat-owners or occupants at the building asking for the decree, insofar as it relates to the common area on the terrace at the 21st floor at the building, to be set aside. The applications by the plaintiffs in such suit, whether in that suit or in the execution proceedings, held up the execution for several months. Such plaintiffs have subsequently not shown interest in pursuing the matters. As a result, some of the applications seeking to resist the decree have been dismissed. The applications in CS No. 61 of 2010 have been adjourned. Ga No. 3030 of 2010 is an application in the execution proceedings by company Pacific to resist the decree-holders" attempt to obtain possession of a part of the property covered by the schedule to the decree which is under the occupation of Pacific. Ga No. 859 of 2011 is an application by some of the occupants of the building claiming rights in respect of the decretal premises and seeking to be examined pro inter esse suo.;