NAMITA BARUA Vs. D K SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by Mr. Biswanath Mondal residing at No. EC-116, Salt Lake City, Sector-I, Kolkata- 700 064. He is aggrieved by the decree dated 16th December, 2004 passed in a suit, being C.S. No. 346 of 2001, between the Baruas, the plaintiffs Mr. D.K. Singhal and Mr. Jaydeb Pal, being the first two defendants. The other defendant, being the third was proforma. He was the landlord, Biswa Ranjan Sarbadhikari against whom no relief was claimed. He is now dead. Since he was a proforma defendant, his name may be deleted from the cause title.

(2.) The petitioner is particularly aggrieved by the execution levied further to the decree. He says that he enjoys tenancy rights over one big hall, one kitchen and one toilet on the ground floor and a mezzanine floor leading from the hall consisting of three wooden cubicles in premises No. 49, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata 700 013 (hereinafter "the said premises") which was acquired from the said proforma defendant, who was the owner of the property. He complains of dispossession and asks the Court under Order XXI Rules 99 to 103 to adjudicate this issue.

(3.) According to him this suit is a collusive suit between the Baruas and the first two defendants to evict him. Furthermore, the suit was framed in this way. The plaintiffs, the Baruas were tenants under the proforma defendant. The first defendant was his manager and the second defendant the manager's accomplice. Both of them collaborated with each other to dispossess the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed ex parte on 16th December, 2004. The decree provided for delivery of "khas possession"of the said premises to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, execution proceedings were taken out by the plaintiffs/decree holders. The application was marked as EC No. 85 of 2005. On 25th August, 2005 an order was passed appointing a receiver to make an inventory of the said premises and file a report. On 8th September, 2005 another order was passed recording that the "suit premises"was found locked, by the Receiver. He put his own padlock. Furthermore, the receiver was directed to hand over possession of the "suit premises"to the plaintiffs/decree holders. The execution application was disposed of. Accordingly, the receiver handed over its possession to the plaintiffs/decree-holders.