LAXMIPAT PARAKH Vs. BIMLA DEVI PUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a contempt petition filed by the landlord of the premises. The suit was filed on 7-2-1992 against Mr. Ramji Roy Pun partner of French (Agency) for possession of the premises bearing No. 7/1-A at 7/IC, Lindsay Street, Calcutta. Along with the plaint two receipts were filed in respect of payment of rent for Rs. 701 and Rs. 800/-. The receipts described the premises as 7/1-A at 7/1-C, Lindsay Street, Calcutta. It is not contended that, in the suit, any dispute was raised by respondents-tenants that the said receipts which referred to the premises 7/1-A at 7/1-C, did not relate to the property described in plaint as 7/1-A. The trial court dismissed the suit on 28-7-1995 but the first appellate court decreed the suit on 26-6-1996. The said judgment was affirmed by this Court on 6-8-1996. The respondent/tenants sought six months time which was granted subject to their filing an undertaking but the undertaking was never filed by the tenants. The review application which was filed by the tenants was dismissed on 21-6-1996.

(2.) The question arose with regard to the mesne profit payable in respect of the premises. In that behalf the landlady filed a separate appeal C.A. No. 4905/98 to this Court and that came to be decided on 18-9-1998. Parties agreed that mesne profits for the premises described as 7/1-A, Lindsay Street should be ascertained from 26-6-1996 till date of delivery of possession. The parties also agreed that Justice G.N. Ray, retired judge of this Court should determine the mesne profits payable from 26-6-1996 as an arbitrator. The order passed by this Court dated 18th September, 1998 described the premises as 7/1-A, Lindsay Street. No. objection was raised in this Court in regard to the description of the premises.

(3.) But when the matter was taken up by the learned arbitrator for deciding the question of mesne profits, various objections were raised by the respondents. Firstly, it was stated that there was no question of determining the mesne profits. Another objection was that premises bearing No. 7/1-A for which decree was obtained was different from No. 7/1-A at 7/1-C and that execution could not proceed against 7/1-A at 7/1-C where, according to respondents, they were conducting business. The matter came up to this Court on 26-7-1999 when the decree holder was directed to execute the decree in respect of premises bearing No. 7/1-A and not with regard to 7/1-C. Subsequently, the execution court took up the matter and possession of the premises bearing No. 7/1-A was granted to the decree holder on 21-8-1999. Objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that under the guise of execution against 7/1-A, the respondents were being evicted from the premises which was described as 7/1-A at 7/1-C. However possession was delivered for the petitioners in respect of 7/1-A on 21-8-1999. In fact, it appears the respondents have even filed an application for restoration of possession back to them.