MAHESHWARI Vs. SHEILA GUHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the centre of these matters is a property off Park Street but with a Park Street address. One set of the parties owns the property; another is in possession of a part thereof; a third set claims to be entitled as tenants thereat; and, the fourth aspires to develop the property at the prime location. The property at 46, Park Street is owned by a trust connected with the Armenian Church. The property is vested in the Official Trustee.

(2.) The wardens of the Armenian entered into an agreement on or about August 19, 1999 with, inter alia, the petitioner in AP No. 373 of 2006 and AP No. 129 of 2010 for developing the property. The petitioner in AP No. 373 of 2006 and AP No. 129 of 2010 is one of a set of joint sub-tenants under the original tenant or the heirs of the original tenant at the property. The agreement between the wardens and the would-be developers envisaged the permission of the Official Trustee and the approval of the Court to be obtained. Such permission and approval were necessary since the property vests in the Official Trustee, who is governed by the provisions of the Official Trustees Act, 1913, and the matters pertaining to the properties of the trust are governed by a scheme settled by this court.

(3.) Following the wardens request to the Official Trustee to concur in the agreement, the Official Trustee wrote back on November 19, 1999 that he was unable to approve the development agreement. The Official Trustee referred, in particular, to certain clauses on which he has considerable reservation. The wardens and the would-be developers quickly set about re-working the relevant clauses to assuage the sentiments of the Official Trustee. A draft agreement was prepared by or about January, 2000 and again forwarded to the Official Trustee. The draft agreement envisaged that the Official Trustee would grant the would-be developers a tenancy in respect of the entirety of the premises for a period of seven years and six months at a monthly rent of Rs. 7000/- subject to the existing occupants in a portion thereof. The draft agreement also recorded that the developers would, "on approval of this agreement by the Hon ble High Court at Calcutta," deposit a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakh by way of security, which would be refunded after 50% of the demarcated allotted area as provided thereunder was made available. The developers were to become the immediate landlords of the existing joint tenants. The developers were to construct one or more new buildings at the premises at their own cost in accordance with the plan to be sanctioned by the corporation. The draft agreement did not specify the total area of the constructed space but indicated that 10,000 sq.ft thereof would be allotted to the developers and the rest would be divided between the parties in equal share with the developers enjoying a 99-year lease under the Official Trustee in respect of their allocation of 10,000 sq.ft built-up area at a monthly rent of Rs.5000/. One of the clauses of the draft agreement envisaged sanction thereof being obtained from this court.