Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the petitioner and is directed against the order dated December 4, 2008 passed by the Municipal Building Tribunal Kolkata Municipal Corporation in Appeal No.BT 40 of 2003 thereby dismissing the said appeal on contest without costs filed by the appellant/opposite party no.1 herein.
(2.) THE short fact is that the petitioner is one of the owners of the premises no.3, Outram Street, Kolkata 700 017, being one of the trustees and beneficiaries of the Trust Estate of Bankim Chandra Roy together with Trust Estate of Kalachand Roy. THE owners of the said premises gave the tenancy of the said premises to the Outram Club, an unregistered association represented by the then President on July 25, 1992. Since then, the said club is in possession of the said tenanted premises. On getting the tenancy of the said premises, the Outram Club raised certain unauthorised constructions and it failed to pay any heed to the warnings and express provisions of the owners against the illegal acts. For that reason, one of the owners of the said property filed a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and other consequential reliefs against the club and its members before the City Civil Court, Calcutta. Certain orders were passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court but the said club did not comply with such directions. Ultimately, the petitioner filed a suit being C.S. No.22 of 1997 before this Honble Court praying for declaration that the members of the said club have no right, title and authority to make addition, alteration, construction, encroachment, etc. and that the said construction should be demolished. He also prayed for other reliefs such as, perpetual injunction. Subsequently, a receiver was appointed with regard to the premises in suit and he submitted a report on the points as directed by the learned Court. THEreafter, several other litigations/proceedings cropped up between the parties. Ultimately, in a proceeding being D/Case No.532-D/2001-2002 under Section 400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the Special Officer (Building), Kolkata Municipal Corporation directed that the building as mentioned in part A shall be retained subject to payment of erection / re-erection charges for the retained impugned structures and demolition in respect of the properties, as described in part B on May 8, 2003. Being aggrieved by such order of the Special Officer (Building), the opposite party no.1 herein being the President of the said club filed an appeal being the BT Appeal No.40 of 2003. That appeal was dismissed on contest on December 4, 2008. Thereafter, the petitioner, as one of the owners, has preferred this application. Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on going through the materials on record as well as the written argument, I find that the Special Officer (Building) passed the orders of demolition with respect to the properties, as described in part B and retention of the properties in respect of the properties mentioned in part A upon payment of erection /re4 erection charges for the retained impugned structures. Though the petitioner was a party to the said proceedings, he did not prefer any appeal. It is the president of the said club who filed an appeal against the order of the Special Officer (Building). So, it can well be presumed that the petitioner had no grievance when the Special Officer (Building) passed the order of demolition in part, on May 8, 2003.
(3.) THE appeal was filed by the president of the club/opposite party herein was hotly contested and the learned Building Tribunal passed the orders in details supporting the orders passed by the Special Officer (Building). THE learned Building Tribunal has clearly observed that the petitioner himself though claims as the sole landlord, he did not disclose his exclusive right, title and interest in the property though the tenancy agreement dated July 25, 1982 was signed by all the trustees of Trust Estate of Bankim Chandra Roy together with Trust Estate of Kalachand Roy. THE petitioner has failed also to show his authority to represent both the trusts by himself as the sole landlord with regard to the suit premises. As noted above, the President of the said club filed the appeal on the ground that he was aggrieved by the order of demolition with regard to the properties mentioned in part B only. In fact, the petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the order of the Special Officer (Building). The Special Officer (Building) gave the reasons details why the building mentioned under part B should be demolished and that was the only subject matter of challenge by the opposite party no.1 herein before the learned Building Tribunal. Though the order of the Special Officer was passed on May 8, 2003, no appeal was preferred by the petitioner as yet. By the impugned order, the learned Building Tribunal rejected the prayer with regard to the order of demolition in respect of the properties mentioned in part B. It is the observation of the Special Officer (Building) as well as the appellate Building Tribunal that in the name of undertaking simple repair, renovation work, the appellant had raised construction and that the appellant had no authority to raise the construction without prior permission of the landlord/owner. Even no permission was obtained from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Under the circumstances, the order of demolition was passed with regard to the property mentioned in part "B. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse.;