MINERVA DAIRY AND FARM Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MINERVA Dairy and Farm, a registered partnership firm and its three (3) partners namely, Ranjit Singh Bengani, pratap Singh Bengani and Rajinder Singh Bengani have filed the present writ petition, praying, inter alia, :-

(2.) IT is stated in detail that by and under a registered indenture of lease dated February 24, 1988 entered into between the partners of the above firm namely petitioners Nos. 2,3 and 4 and M/s. Stephen Court Limited, the petitioners became lessees in respect of Flat No. 24a on the Fourth Floor of premises 18a Park Street, Calcutta. The petitioner's Nos. 2, 3 and 4 allowed minerva Dairy and Firm the Petitioner Mo. 1 to become a monthly tenant in respect of the said flat at a rent of Rs. 6000/- per month with rights to sublet or sublease the said flat. It is placed on record that in between April, 1988 and October, 1989, the petitioners had carried out essential reparis of the said flat particularly of the existing wooden mezzanine floor which was in a bad state and the toilet of the said flat and also other urgent repair work. It is contended that while the said flat was being repaired, the petitioners were severly harassed by the respondent No. 4, residing at flat no. 22, Stephen Court, which is immediately below the flat of the petitioners. It is also placed on record that by a registered indenture of lease dated September 13, 1989 the said flat was sublet by the petitioner no. 1 to Eicher Moters Ltd. , the respondent No. 5 for use of office space on terms and conditions stated in the said lease. According to the petitioners, the respondent No. 5 informed them that a notice being notice No. 5123. dated July 17, 1991 had been issued: by the respondent authorities Act, 1980 in respect of the said flat, asking for stoppage of all construction work at the said flat. On July 18, I991,the respondent Municipal Authorities, issued a further notice being notice No. CAB/2718 purportedly under section 401 (1) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act 1980 alleging that police personnel had been posted at the said flat or prevention of continuance of unauthorised construction at the said flat. The petitioners have thus challenged the a foresaid notices complaining, inter alia, that the respondent No. 4, who is an influential person had made illegal demands. Since the petitioners could not oblige the respondent No. 4 the impugned notices have been issued by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities which are illegal and baseless. Stating all these facts the petitioners have come to this Court seeking reliefs on the ground that the notices have been issued by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities mechanically and with a total non-application of mind. The impugned notices are arbitrary, defective and contrary to the statutory provisions and consequently they are invalid and illegal.

(3.) IT appears that the writ petitioners obtained interim orders dated 23rd September, 1991, U. C. Banerjee, J, was pleased to appoint Sri kalika Prasad Banerjee, a practising advocate, of this Court as Special officer to inspect the Premises in question to find out whether there exists any new construction as to enable the Corporation Authorities to issue a notice under Section 401 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, pursuant thereto the said Special Officer has filed this report on 30th september, 1991. The Special Officer inspected the flat of the petitioners only by giving notice to the Respondent No. 4. The Special Officer has reported that there is mezzanine accommodation having a height of 6ft with wooden floor with wooden staircase. Besides this said accommodation, there is a pantry, wooden staircase on the southern side of the hall. While he visited he did not find any new construction to enable the corporation authorities to issue notice under Section 401 or the Calcutta Municipal corporation Act. as submitted.