- (1.) This instant revisional application has been directed against the order dated 18th July, 2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal No.II in Misc. Appeal No. 21 of 2003 arising out of T.A. No. 309 of 1995, whereby the learned Tribunal directed the learned Receiver to restore the possession of Premises Nos. 72/2 and 72/4 Shambhu Nath Pandit St. to the opposite party Sri Kamal Chowdhury within a period of 48 hours from the date of the receipt of the order.
(2.) Challenging the authority of the Tribunal to pass an order for restoration of possession, Mr. S. P. Roychowdhury, learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that in granting such order, the learned Tribunal had exceeded its power and jurisdiction. Referring to the provision of Section 17 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, it is submitted that the jurisdiction of the DRT is confined in and limited to recovery of debt of the bank only. The debt of the bank having been recovered and realized on 30.06.06, the DRT had no authority and jurisdiction to pass an order of restoration on 18th July, 2006. The DRT having been made functus officio on and from 10th June, 2006, the usurpation of jurisdiction on 18th July, 2006 was totally illegal. It was not within the scope and ambit of the Debt Recovery Tribunal either.
(3.) Challenging the authority of the opposite party No.2 to claim restoration of possession of the tenanted premises, Mr. Roychowdhury has submitted that the learned Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the case for recovery of the debt was filed against principal debtor M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. with opposite party No. 2 Mr.Kamal Chowdhury figuring as one of the respondents. It is contended that the tenancy of the premises stood in the name of the firm - a fact which was even acknowledged by the opposite party No. 2 in his application under Order 39, Rule 4 C.P.C. filed by the opposite party No. 2 in Title Suit No. 102 of 2006. The symbolic possession of the premises having been obtained from M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd., the learned Tribunal ought to have directed restoration of the property in favour of the M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. products only.;