ASHOKA GHOSE AND ORS. Vs. DEBSONS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiffs' interlocutory application and a contempt petition are so inescapably connected that they have been taken up together; but separate orders are made. The suit as originally brought to this Court was for eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent and alleged damage to the property. The plaint has long been amended to incorporate a further ground on account of alleged sub -letting. The Plaintiffs' principal grievance in their latest interlocutory application is of the Defendant attempting to change the nature and character of the tenanted premises. The immediate purpose of the application is indicated in the last fifteen or so paragraphs of the petition.

(2.) Though a part of the Plaintiffs' petition suggests construction work of a permanent nature being carried out at the demised premises by the Defendant without notice to the Plaintiffs, the application was meant to be somewhat of a shot in the dark angling for bigger things. The contempt petition has been subsequently filed on the charge of violation of interlocutory orders passed in the suit. During the pendency of both matters, a special officer has visited the premises pursuant to an order made on December 24, 2010 on GA No. 2301 of 2010. Though the dispute centres on the commercial exploitation of the property, it is now tinged with the special animosity that landlords and tenants bear against each other; so much so that the rival parties have stood their ground and yielded no quarter despite the Court's prodding.

(3.) The relationship between the two sets of parties has soured for reasons that may be systemic and beyond the parties. The suit is some thirty -three years young and is a commentary on the institutional delay that plagues the judicial system. At the time that the suit was instituted, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - the solitary piece of legislation that landlords in this State have inexorably despised - was in place and the law was heavily loaded in favour of tenants irrespective of the nature of the property or the station or financial prowess of the tenant. The 1997 Act which has replaced the 1956 statute has somewhat balanced the scales. The Plaintiffs here have filed repeated interlocutory applications almost as if to vent their angst at the sufferance of their lot. The Defendant feels harassed that it has been subjected to unending intrusions without the Plaintiffs showing any inclination to proceed to trial in what the Defendant perceives to be an unmeritorious claim. On the other hand, the Plaintiffs appear to be outraged at the Defendant taking advantage of a law not intended to protect the Defendant's ilk but according uniform succor to all tenants.