SUBRATA KR ROY Vs. SAMIR KR BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the petitioner and is directed against the order dated December 4, 2008 passed by the Municipal Building Tribunal Kolkata Municipal Corporation in Appeal No.BT 40 of 2003 thereby dismissing the said appeal on contest without costs filed by the appellant/opposite party no.1 herein.

(2.) THE short fact is that the petitioner is one of the owners of the premises no.3, Outram Street, Kolkata 700 017, being one of the trustees and beneficiaries of the Trust Estate of Bankim Chandra Roy together with Trust Estate of Kalachand Roy. THE owners of the said premises gave the tenancy of the said premises to the Outram Club, an unregistered association represented by the then President on July 25, 1992. Since then, the said club is in possession of the said tenanted premises. On getting the tenancy of the said premises, the Outram Club raised certain unauthorised constructions and it failed to pay any heed to the warnings and express provisions of the owners against the illegal acts. For that reason, one of the owners of the said property filed a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and other consequential reliefs against the club and its members before the City Civil Court, Calcutta. Certain orders were passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court but the said club did not comply with such directions. Ultimately, the petitioner filed a suit being C.S. No.22 of 1997 before this Honble Court praying for declaration that the members of the said club have no right, title and authority to make addition, alteration, construction, encroachment, etc. and that the said construction should be demolished. He also prayed for other reliefs such as, perpetual injunction. Subsequently, a receiver was appointed with regard to the premises in suit and he submitted a report on the points as directed by the learned Court. THEreafter, several other litigations/proceedings cropped up between the parties.

(3.) THE appeal was filed by the president of the club/opposite party herein was hotly contested and the learned Building Tribunal passed the orders in details supporting the orders passed by the Special Officer (Building). THE learned Building Tribunal has clearly observed that the petitioner himself though claims as the sole landlord, he did not disclose his exclusive right, title and interest in the property though the tenancy agreement dated July 25, 1982 was signed by all the trustees of Trust Estate of Bankim Chandra Roy together with Trust Estate of Kalachand Roy. THE petitioner has failed also to show his authority to represent both the trusts by himself as the sole landlord with regard to the suit premises.