LAWS(CAL)-2004-4-91

RANABIR SAHA Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

Decided On April 08, 2004
RANABIR SAHA Appellant
V/S
MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the order dated 27.6.2002 passed by the Ld. Municipal Building Tribunal, Calcutta Municipal Corporation in Appeal No. 76/1988-89 affirming the order dated 28.4.1988 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Calcutta Municipal Corporation under section 414 (3) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 in case No. 116-D/1985- 86.

(2.) The circumstances leading to the present revision are that after the death of Lakshmi Narayan Saha who was a tenant in premises No. 14/1, Nirode Behari Mallick Road, Calcutta - 700 006 under Gour Chandra Pal at a monthly rental of Rs. 80/payable according to English Calendar month, on 13.1.1979, the petitioner, his mother and brothers became tenants-in-common. Since the premises were totally dilapidated, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation served a notice under section 411 (1) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 for carrying out essential repair works. The petitioner and other co-tenants affected minor repairs in 1982. The Municipal Authorities illegally initiated a demolition proceeding under section 400 (1) of the Act. The Special Officer (B) passed an order of demolition of the impugned structures on 26.4.88 relying upon the malicious representation of the representative of the deceased landlord, and the petitioner's appeal being B.T. Appeal No. 76/1988-89 against the said order was dismissed. In revision being C.O. 779/2002, this Court remanded back the matter for fresh decision on 30.4.2002. But the Ld. Building Tribunal without considering the matter in true perspective mechanically confirmed the order of demolition on 27.6.2002 which is not in compliance with the order of this Court. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision.

(3.) All that now requires to be considered is whether the Ld. Tribunal was justified in passing the above order.