RAHUL MAHESHWARI Vs. GUHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREMISES no. 46, Park Street, Calcutta is comprised of one bigha of land having two storeyed building having a built up area of four thousand five hundred square feet as claimed by Mr. Roy Chowdhury appearing for Sheila Guha. Armenian Church was the owner of the said premises in question, now under the control and management of Official Trustee, West Bengal. In 1962, the Official Trustee executed a Deed of Lease in favour of one Dr. Mohini Mohan Ghosh for a period of twenty-one years. Dr. Ghosh was granted permission to sublet part of the premises for residential purpose with a rider that he would be obliged to occupy and reside in the said premises retaining major portion of it. The said lease executed on October 4, 1962 was renewed for a further term on the same terms and conditions. The renewed lease expired on February 6, 1985. Mr. Ghosh however, continued in possession. Official Trustee permitted him to retain possession as a monthly tenant on the same terms and conditions as contained in the Deed of Lease. The Official Trustee created the tenancy vide letter dated February 14, 1994, that gave an unfettered right so to say to the Ghoses to stay in the said premises by exploiting a substantial portion of it for commercial gain by subletting. Mr. Roychowdhury however, claimed that he was to bear all statutory outgoing and cost of maintenance of the said property and he used to spend a lac of rupees per month. On that score, we do not find any definite proof. On November 3, 1995, Dr. Mohini Mohan Ghosh died intestate leaving him surviving two daughters and two sons and widow Ava Rani Ghosh, the eldest one was Sheila Guha. The present controversy would relate to a sub-tenant Mohanhal, who came to reside in flat no.4 of the said premises as a sub-tenant under Mohini Mohan in 1968. On December 17, 1984 Mohanlal died leaving him surviving his widow and sons including Rahul and Rajeev Maheshwari, the appellants in A.P.O. No.32 of 2012, A.P.O. No.33 of 2012 and A.P.O. No. 77 of 2012.

(2.) DISPUTE arose when Rahul bypassed Sheila and others and contacted the Official Trustee directly as also the Church. On August 19, 1999 Rahul and Others (hereinafter referred to as Maheshwari Group) entered into an agreement for development of the said property subject to the approval of Official Trustee. Under the agreement, Maheswaries were to take all steps for clearing of hindrances that might come up in the way of development of the property including making suitable arrangement with the occupants, if possible, by getting vacant possession from them. Wardens of the Armenian Church filed an application being G.A. No.3565 of 2000, inter alia, for obtaining permission of this Court with regard to development of the said property in terms of the agreement referred to above and a corresponding direction upon the Official Trustee to execute the said agreement on behalf of the Church. The petitioners did not press the said application. On November 27, 2003 one of us (Ashim Kumar Banerjee,J.) sitting singly, dismissed the same for default. On November 18, 2004 Maheshwari Group applied for intervention in the said application being G.A. No.356 of 2000 presumably without knowing that the same had already been dismissed for default. The learned Single Judge allowed the said application without knowing that the G.A. No.356 of 2000 had already been dismissed. Vide letter dated August 12, 2005, the advocates for the Church Wardens extended their support to Maheshwaris by indicating that they would have no objection if the Maheswaries would take steps for obtaining vacant and peaceful possession of the property in view of the delay in receiving permission from the Court.

(3.) THE analysis of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge would reveal as follows :-