- (1.) RIGHTLY or wrongly the court passed an order restraining the appellant Narayan Prasad Saraf from dealing with or disposing of the suit property. Despite order of injunction, it is alleged, he inducted Pradip Kr. Jalan as tenant in respect of room no.24 in premises no. 44, Battala Street, Kolkata. When it surfaced, the learned Judge directed the Special Officer to remove Jalans from the said room and take possession forthwith. The learned Judge also permitted the plaintiff to take steps against Narayan. Hence, these two appeals one by Jalan and other by Narayan.
(2.) WE have heard the parties at length. Mr. Suman Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the Jalans, would hand over a list of rent payable by the other shop owners where we find, paltry sums are being paid. They are tenants, who are paying rent at the rate of Rs.12 per month (Room Nos. 57, 62 and 79). Let this list be kept on record. Relying on the said list Mr. Dutta would claim, this Court should regularize his tenancy by fixing reasonable rent. Mr. Sakya Sen, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent -plaintiff, would, however, contend, once the learned Judge was satisfied, the tenancy was nothing but a camouflage and in clear violation of the order of injunction, he is entitled to proceed both against Narayan as well as the trespassers. On regularization, Mr. Sen on instruction agrees to regularize the tenancy of Jalan provided they pay Rs.10,000/ - per month. Hence, we allow the appeal of Jalan being APOT No. 408 of 2012 by regularizing his tenancy on and from May, 2011 at the rate of Rs.10,000/ - per month that would have a three years increase @ 10%. The arrears to be paid by 15 equal monthly instalments payable on and from February, 2014 along with the current monthly rent. Since the parties could arrive at an arrangement, we need not deal with the merits of the appeal. Mr. Dutta prays for leave to repair the premises. Let him do so at his own cost. This would take care of the appeal filed by Jalans.
(3.) WITH regard to appeal of Narayan, Ms. Piyali Sengupta, learned Counsel appearing for Narayan, would refer to page 66 of her paper book that would show, earlier tenant vacated the room on December 2, 2009. She would contend, she was not aware of any order of injunction, as such on such tenancy being vacated by the erstwhile tenant, she created the new tenancy. We do not express any opinion. The learned Judge has already permitted the plaintiffs to file appropriate proceeding. Our observations, if made, might influence the future proceeding.;