Sinha, J. - (1.) This application relates to a shop-room situated in premises previously numbered as 23, Canning Street and now known as 183, Old China Bazar Street. It is in the occupation of Ajoy Kumar Ghosh, the petitioner, who carries on a business therein under the name and style of Ghosh Brothers, in Carpets, Mattings, Buckets and other goods. The said property, together with the contiguous premises Nos. 178 to 185, Old China Bazar Street, belonged to one Fazal Hossain, Mohammed Shafique and Mohammed Hanif. In or about 15-8-1954, the Respondent 4, Estate Birendra Kumar Shaw Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, purchased the said premises No. 23, Canning Street, together with the contiguous premises Nos. 178 to 185, Old China Bazar Street. So far as premises No. 183, Old China Bazar Street (formerly No. 23 Canning Street) is concerned, it is a dilapidated structure, about a hundred years old. The surrounding structures have all been demolished for the purpose of building an entirely new construction. This shop-room however is bravely holding out and has to a great extent been successful in preventing the new construction being built. The Corporation of Calcutta (Respondent 1) through the Commissioner (Respondent 2), is taking steps with a view to demolish the shop-room, as a structure which is in a ruinous condition and dangerous to public safety. This application is an attempt to hold up the demolition and to perpetuate the existence of the structure.
(2.) The present owner, respondent 4, challenges the title of the petitioner to be in the premises at all, on the ground that he is a mere trespasser. It is not possible for me in this application to decide disputed questions of title. I must, however, state a few facts without which it would not be possible to appreciate the background upon which this application has been made. I have already mentioned that Fazal Hossain and others were the previous owners of premises No. 23, Canning Street. Banku Behary Pal and Sons were the tenants of the shop-room in question for over fifty years. It appears from an affidavit of Dharmadas Shrimani affirmed in May, 1955 (Annexure 'B' to the affldavit-in-opposition filed by Pannalal Shaw) that in 1948, he was the sole proprietor thereof. In that year, Fazal Hossain and others filed a suit against Banku Behary Pal and Sons (Suit No. 699 of 1948) in this Court for recovery of possession on the ground of building and rebuilding. On 30-4-1948, the suit was decreed. In execution thereof, the owners recovered possession on 14-11-1949. On 4-11-1950, an application for restoration of possession was made by Banku Behary Pal and Sons before the Rent Controller. On 5-1-1951, a partnership business was registered under the name and style of Banku Behary Pal and Sons. The records show, that one Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee and Ajit Kumar Das were the partners thereof. Ajit Kumar Das has affirmed an affidavit dated 12-5-1955 (Annexure 'B' to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Pannalal Shaw) in which he has stated that he was never a partner of the firm of Banku Behary Pal and Sons and his signature must have been forged in the application for registration. On 6-1-1951, this new firm of Banku Behary Pal and Sons obtained possession of the shop-room by virtue of certain orders of the Rent Controller stated to have been obtained ex parte. On 19-3-1951, these orders were set aside. But Fazal Hossain and others never regained possession, on the other hand they were involved in continuous litigation. The petitioner claims to be a sub-tenant under the said Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee. In December, 1953, Fazal Hossain and others filed a suit in this Court being Suit No. 4075 of 1953, against Banku Behary Pal and Sons and Ghosh Bros., for recovery of possession etc. On 15-8-1954, they sold the whole property (23 Canning Street and 178 to 185, Old China Bazar Street) to respondent 4. The present owners have continued the demolitions until there remains only this shop-room to be demolished. On 12-5-1955, the petitioner lodged a complaint under Section 527/506, I. P. C. with the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. On or about 14-4-1955, he made an application under Section 144, Cr. P. C. This application was rejected. On 5-5-1955 the petitioner filed a suit in this Court, against Respondent 4, inter alia for an injunction restraining the Company or its agent etc. from interfering with the rights of the petitioner and for other reliefs.
(3.) On 27-4-1955 Respondent 4 wrote to the Director West Bengal Fire Service, to the effect that the shop-room was in a dangerous state of disrepair, and steps should be taken to save the public from imminent danger. On 29-4-1955, similar letters were addressed to the Commissioner and City Architect of the Calcutta Corporation. It appears that even before these letters were written, the Insecure Building Surveyor of District II had visited the premises on 21-4-1955 and made the following report: "On inspection it is found that the one storeyed shop, and godown as shown in the sketch are lying in a dangerous state. The building has outlived its useful existence and it is not worthwhile to repair the same. The godown portion is vacant, the beams have sagged to maximum limit and may yield at any moment. The roadside room is occupied by a shop. A crack has developed right from the ground to the roof and a portion of the roof is hanging due to the demolition of the adjoining wall. Action under Rule 5 (4) of Schedule. XVJI is necessary for the safety of the inmates and passerby. Submitted for orders.";