ASIM KUMAR MONDAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioners No. 1 to 9 are the defendants in a suit being No. 1508 of 2011 pending before learned Judge, 13th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta.
(2.) THE opposite party No. 1 filed the suit against the defendants / petitioners No. 1 to 9 and also against the opposite parties No. 3 to 10 praying for declaration that the occupation of the defendants are illegal, unlawful and they are the trespassers. Further that the plaintiff also prayed for recovery of possession by way of delivery of khas possession of the suit premises No. 36, A.P.C. road, Kolkata. The case of the plaintiff/ Opposite Party No. 1 is that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company. It has inducted M/s. Fahmco, a partnership firm as tenant in the suit premises by an agreement with certain terms and conditions. M/s. Fahmco had three partners, Abdul Hassan, Mashiur Rahaman and Athar Ali Khan. The said partners died in the year 1984 and 1998. Achchi Begam, wife of late Athar Ali Khan was never a partner of M/s. Fahmco being the lessee of the plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff / opposite party No. 1 that an inspection made by the representatives of the Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta, it is revealed that M/s. Fahmco has no existence practically in the said premises of the company at present and there is a hotel and other businesses run by the petitioners and they are collecting the rents of some shop rooms situated in the said premises. It is the further case of the petitioner / plaintiff / opposite party No. 1 that Achchi Begam, deceased mother of the petitioners / defendants No. 1 to 9 died on May 12th, 2008 and the said defendants including their mother Achchi Begam never carried on any business from the said premises. None of the defendants No. 1 to 9 were ordinarily residing with Achchi Begam up to her death in the premises in question. So, the defendants are trespassers in the said premises in the eye of law ad they have also no right, title and interest to hold possession or to carry on business in the suit premises. Hence the suit. In the said suit the petitioners / defendants No. 1 to 9 appeared and filed one petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for rejection of the plaint on the grounds that in a subsequent suit filed by M/s. Fahmco, this Court passed a decree on February 1st, 1967 declaring it as tenant in the tenanted premises including 36, A.P.C. Road. The plaintiff Company went into liquidation and order of winding up was passed by this Court on July 13th, 1967. The Hon'ble High Court in the said winding up proceeding granted leave to M/s. Fahmco to proceed with the execution of the decree against the plaintiff company. At the relevant time the Official Liquidator of the High Court was deemed to be in possession of the entire assets and properties of the plaintiff / opposite party No. 1. In an application filed by Achhi Begam in the said liquidation proceedings applied for acceptance of rent and the company court accepted the same after enhancing it to Rs. 350/ -.
(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY rent was refixed at Rs. 400/- per month. The defendants No. 1 to 9 made an application before the High Court being C.A. No. 507 of 2008 for substitution of their names in place of Achchi Begam. High Court dispose of the said application with observation that the applicants may assert their rights as being entitled to whatever Achchi Begam had been entitled to in respect of the said property.;