MALAY MUNSHI Vs. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the private respondent nos. 5 and 6. Leave granted to the petitioner to correct the typographical mistake in prayer (a) at page 25 of the writ petition.

(2.) In the writ petition, the petitioner stated to be a tenant on the premises at 58B, Ramkanta Bose Street, Kolkata 700003, has prayed for a direction upon the authorities of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to cancel the sanctioned plan granted in favour of the respondent no. 6 since it has been alleged that there has been material misrepresentation before the Corporation while seeking sanction of the building plan of the said premises as the agreement dated 22nd July, 2010, entered into between him and the owner of the premises and the developer, who are parties to the writ petition, wherein it was agreed that on completion of the construction of the building the tenancy agreement would come to an end and the petitioner will be the owner of a 140 square feet residential room, one bath privy and one kitchen space, has been suppressed by the private respondents. Submission has been made that as it is evident from the site plan, appearing at page 37 of the writ petition, that no space measuring 140 square feet has been left for the petitioner to occupy after the construction is raised, as agreed in the said agreement dated 22nd July, 2010, appropriate direction, as prayed for in the writ petition, may be issued.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Corporation disputing the allegations made in the writ petition submits that sanction of the building plan was granted after Dipankar Bakuli, the respondent no. 5, the developer, by a registered declaration dated 30th October, 2010 before the municipal authorities had, inter alia, declared "That I will not evict any tenant and in case it is necessary to remove any tenant, I undertake to provide him with incidental area in and around the premises by mutual agreement". According to him, since the authorities of the Corporation had acted on the basis of such declaration, sanction granted is just and proper.