- (1.) The Court : This is an application for modification of the order dated 30th June, 2016 passed by me by which the Official Receiver was directed to convene a fresh meeting of the shebaits to take a decision whether the rent of the existing tenants can be enhanced. The Official Receiver was also permitted to take steps to enhance the rent if the private respondent failed in taking recourse to the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
(2.) The present application for modification is filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for variation and/or modification of the order dated 13th June, 2016 in terms of paragraph 4 of the petition which is reproduced as under : "4.(a) Your petitioner further states that at the time of hearing of the matter on 6th June, 2016 the Hon'ble Court was pleased to more or less agreed to allow only the renovation of the Dalan of the Thakur Bati as per the suggestion of the Engineer's report in the above annexed to the petition therein being the Premises No.9, Chuttar Para Lane, now Harish Sikdar Path, Calcutta - 700 012 and that is why the Hon'ble Court enquired for the funds lying the hands of the Official Receiver, High Court, O.S., Calcutta from the Advocate appeared for the Official Receiver when the said Learned Advocate informed the Hon'ble Court that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) only (approx) more or less are lying in the hands of the Official Receiver presently in the above estate leaving apart the sum of Rs.3,68,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eight Thousand) only as has bee kept in a fixed deposit account in a Nationalised Bank in terms of Hon'ble Court's Order interest of which was directed to be distributed amongst the shebaits as per their pala or turn for maintaining daily Seva Puja and periodical and yearly festival of the deities Sri Sri Radha Gobinda Jew as per the scheme of expenses of the Deva Seva in the above estate annexed in the pending petition. The system is continuing as on date. (b) That your petitioner states that accordingly the Hon'ble Court on the prayer of the learned Advocate for the Official Receiver, High Court, O.S., Calcutta adjourned the hearing of the pending petition for a week as prayed for the by the said Advocate for the Official Receiver to confirm and inform the Hon'ble Court regarding the actual quantum of exact amount lying the hands of the Official Receiver, High Court, O.S., Calcutta and the matter was adjourned till 13.06.2016 for hearing on that date. (c) That your petitioner states that again on 13.06.2016 the above matter was pleased in the list and after hearing the submission of Counsels appearing in the above the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the order on that date. The xerox copy of the said order dated 13.06.2016 is annexed herewith and collectively marked as the letter "A". (d) That your petitioner states that on 13.06.2016, instead of confirming the actual amount lying in the hands of the Official Receiver, the Learned Advocate appeared for the Official Receiver, High Court, O.S., Calcutta handed over to the Hon'ble Court a copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 16.08.2008, which simply misleaded the whole atmosphere of the situation for hearing and for passing of the required order of the pending petition. The present petition was filed only to develop the Premises No.9, Chuttar Para Lane, Kolkata by any promoter since the building is dilapidated. The copy of the minutes of the meeting was submitted before the Hon'ble Court was in respect of premises no.13, 14 and 14/1, Chuttar Para Lane, Calcutta since the meeting was held in respect of the said premises. Further, the said copy of the Minutes of the meeting was handed over to Court without the forwarding letter dated 21.11.2008 of the then Official Receiver and without the copy of the reply of the said letter in respect of premises no.13, 14 and 14/1, Chuttar Para Lane, Calcutta which are very relevant in respect to the said minutes dated 16.08.2008. (e) That your petitioner states that the plain reading of the petition will prove that there is no whisper at all to renovate the premises no.13, 14 and 14/1, Chuttar Para Lane, Calcutta. Thus, there is no link between the order made and the order prayed for in the petition being GA NO.628 of 2016 P and A in Suit No.2727 of 1950 in the High Court at Calcutta, O.O.C.J. in the above. The petition was filed for granting permission to promote and to renovate the premises No.9, Chuttar Para Lane, Calcutta since the building has become dilapidated due to lack of repair, since long time. Further there is not a single tenant in premises No.9, Chuttar Para Lane, Calcutta and the said building is exclusively used as Thakurbati of the Debottar Estate. In the circumstances, the question of enhancement of rent does not and cannot arise at all in respect of premises No.9, Chuttar Para Lane, Calcutta. The interpretation of the minutes of the meeting dated 16.8.2008 has not only diverted the actual fact of the case but also frustrated the actual intention of the plaintiffs. Since there is no prayer for enhancement of rent of the existing tenants and/or to recover possession from the illegal occupants in the petition although there is no tenant and/or illegal occupant in the said Building/Thakurbati, the order passed may be modified subject to the pleasure of the Hon'ble Court. (f) That your petitioner states that the Hon'ble Court was misinformed and was misleaded on behalf of the Official Receiver by handing over the said minutes of the meeting before the Hon'ble Court for enhancement of rents from the tenants and/or to recover possession of the Debuttar Estate. The minutes of the meeting dated 16.8.2008 was placed before the Hon'ble Court intentionally with a motive to harass the petitioners and to mislead the Hon'ble Court. (g) That your petitioner states that the Hon'ble Court was totally dissatisfied with the contents of the said minutes of the meeting against the Advocate for the Petitioners and amalgamated with other properties of the estate with the premises no.9, Chuttar Para Lane, Calcutta. The Advocate for the petitioners became puzzled for the time being and could not reply then and there in the said situation created by producing the said minutes of the meeting of more than eight years old. The said minutes does not mentioned about any discussion or decision in respect of premises no.9, Chuttar Para Lane, Calcutta for which the GA No.628 of 2016, Suit No.2727 of 1950 in the above was filed for grating necessary permission for renovation of the said premises by any interested promoters failing which the building will brake down and collapse any day. (h) That your petitioner states that some mistakes have been observed after perusing the said order dated 13.6.2016 passed in the above and is to be rectified and/or modified subject to discretion of the Hon'ble Court. 1. Cause Title of the Order Sheet Kishori Mohan Das - should be omitted. Sm. Smriti Das and Ors is to be inserted. Vs Swapan Kumar Das and Ors. (i) That your petitioner states that in the first line of the order it is written as "Mr.Boral is very much vocal in the submission that unless the entire Debuttar Estate". . . . . .which is not correct. Nowhere in the pending petition it has been stated that the entire Debuttar Estate is to be promoted and/or developed. Hence question of making such submission is not at all admitted. Neither the promoter visited the entire Debuttar Estate nor he has agreed to renovate the entire Debuttar Estate. On the other hand the promoter visited the premises no.9, Chuttar Para Lane, Calcutta and agreed to renovate and develop the property being premises no.9, Chuttar Para Lane, Calcutta on 50-50 basis subject to written agreement. As such on instruction from clients the petition was filed to allow such prayer to develop only the premises no.9, Chuttar Para Lane, Calcutta by such promoter or any other else if any one agrees to do so. Other properties of the Debuttar Estate are remaining the same. (j) That your petitioner states that again the sixth line of the first paragraph of the said order it has been written Mr.Boral submitted that the entire Debuttar Estate should be promoted and developed by engaging a developer/promoter, which is not correct. On the other hand the Advocate for the petitioner prayed only to develop the entire premises No.9, Chuttar Para Lane, Calcutta, which is substantiated by the averments made in the pending petition. (k) That your petitioner states that instead of the "the entire Debuttar Estate", "the entire premises No.9, Chuttar Para Lane, Calcutta" is to be inserted. (l) That your petitioner states that in respect of para 2 of the order dated 13.06.2016, it is stated that the copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 16.08.2008 was handed over to Court without a copy of the reply of the said order forwarded to the Advocate for the petitioners by the letter dated 21.11.2008 of the then Official Receiver, High Court, O.S., Calcutta which proves that the Ld. Advocate failed to apply his mind in the matter or the attempt was intentional and with motive not to have favourable order in the instant petition. The xerox copy of the reply of the letter dated 21.11.2008 of the O.R., High Court, O.S., Calcutta along with the said forwarding letter dated 21.11.2008 letter are annexed herewith which will speak for itself and collectively marked as with the letter 'A'. (m) That your petitioner states that in respect of 3rd para of the said order there is no link between the premises mentioned in the minutes of the meeting and prayer for renovation of the premises of the pending petition save and except all the premises are of the same Debuttar Estate. (n) That your petitioner states that it is stated that the said minutes of the meeting dated 16.08.2008 was placed before the Hon'ble Court most probably without proper instruction from the learned Official Receiver, who has joined in the post only for two months (approximately) and supposed not to be very much acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case in the above estate. Hence, the relevant part of the said order may be modified and/or altered and/or rectified, subject to the Hon'ble Court discretion in the present facts and circumstances of this case".
(3.) Upon meaningful reading of the averments made in the aforesaid paragraphs, it is stated by the plaintiffs/petitioners that the application being GA No.628 of 2016 was filed for a permission to start the renovation work at premises No.9, Chuttar Para Lane now Harish Sikdar Path, Kolkata - 700 012 and the other premises comprised in the debuttar estate was not the subject-matter therein. It is sought to be contended therein that the order dated 13th June, 2016 appears to have been passed as if the entire debuttar estate was involved and sought to be promoted and, therefore, the word 'debuttar estate' should be deleted and be replaced by the expression 'premises no.9, Chuttar Para Lane, Kolkata'. It is stated that on the day of passing the said order, the learned Advocate representing the Official Receiver handed over a copy of the meeting held on 16th August, 2008 which does not contain the true and exact state of affairs and, in fact, misleaded the atmosphere of the situation of the hearing. It is further indicated that the copy of the minutes was handed over without the forwarding letter and the reply to such letter which was restricted to premises No.13, 14, and 14/1, Chuttar Para Lane, Kolkata. It is further indicated that the premises no.9, Chuttar Para Lane, Kolkata is now occupied by any tenant and, therefore, the direction for enhancement of the rent in the said order dated 13th June, 2016 is beyond the scope of the application and, in fact, no occasion arises for the same. It is, thus, stated that the Official Receiver has blended the other properties with the premises no.9, Chuttar Para Lane, Kolkata and created a confusing atmosphere at the time of hearing. It is, thus, stated that the application which was appearing before the Court was restricted for a permission to renovate premises no.9, Chuttar Para Lane, Kolkata as a portion thereof has already collapsed and the interest of idol is highly affected. Apart from the same, the plaintiffs/petitioners have also brought to the notice of the Court the typographical and ministerial error in the cause title of the impugned order.;