SATYA BRATA SINHA, J - (1.) Both these appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 19-9-97 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ petition No. 774/97 and Writ petition No. 633/97 whereby and whereunder the said learned Court allowed the writ applications filed by the first respondent in each appeal.FactsThe fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.A huge amount was said to be due by way of payment of consolidated rate, interest and penalty imposed thereon from Abdul Halim Gaznavi Mollah and others who are Writ petitioners of W.P. No. 774/97. The premises No. 8, Lenin Sarani, Calcutta 6 the annual valuation whereof was the subject-matter of the said writ application was owned by the writ petitioners. There had been a revision in the said valuation in the year 1972-73 as a result whereof the same was enhanced from Rs. 54,071/- to Rs. 1,05,193/- with effect from 4th quarter of 1972-73 without any notice. An objections was taken to the said decision consequent whereto the matter was referred to the special officer of the Corporation who by an order dated 23rd June, 1978 fixed the annual valuation of Rs. 91,708/- relying on or on the basis of alleged monthly rent of Rs. 10,200/-. Subsequently allegedly other structures had been put in and the annual valuation of the building was revised from time to time. The petitioners were alleged served with the bills by the Corporation which had been denied and disputed by them. A demand for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was made thereafter a distress warrant was issued. While taking recourse to the recovery proceedings locks were put in some shops belonging to the tenant's and three cars were attached. The writ petition was filed, inter alia, stating :-1. Keeping in view the fact that the annual valuation since 4th quarter of 1973-74 had been stayed by this Court, no bill could be raised and realised on that basis and as such the demand made and consequently other steps taken for recovery of the amount in questions was bad in law.
(2.) The demand raised in 1986 has also been stayed by this Court by an ex parte order and, therefore, the said demand also could not be realised.
(3.) The appellant-Corporation had no right to stop the business of the tenants in respect of a shop-room which is owned by a private company, and thus, a separate entity.;