HIMANDRI NARAYAN BASU Vs. SHANTA MAHALANOBIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In 1979 the Superintendence Company of India Limited filed a suit being suit No. 343 of 1979 as against Western Building Corporation inter-alia claiming, the defendant being the developer of the Everest building failed to adhere to the agreement for sale as also complete the construction and maintain the building. Simultaneously on filing of the suit the Superintendence filed an application for interim protection. One Mohit Mahalanobis a retired Army Officer was appointed as Administrator of the Everest building at premises No. 44C Jaharlal Nehuru Road Calcutta vide order dated August 25, 1980. From time to time this Court passed diverse orders extending the scope of work by the Administrator. Administrator initially started his office on the corridor as claimed by him. Subsequently getting a vacant and unfinished flat without any proper title Mohit took possession of flat No. 21B and started his office after doing the finishing work that was left. It was also alleged; he let out a portion of it. It was however, not clear what he would do with the issues and profits that he could make out of such letting out. It further transpired, the said flat was an unauthorized one having no sanction from the Municipal Corporation.

(2.) In or about 1995 one Suprabha Basu, Himadri Narayan Basu and Soumendra Narayan Basu filed a suit against Mohit by making Western Building Corporation and Manikrai Sujani Bharat as proforma defendant. The plaintiffs claimed, they were the heirs of one Jatindra Narayan Basu. Jatindra was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Basu Mitra and Company as a building contractor. They would claim, flat No. 21B was the property of Jatindra that they inherited after his death. Hence, Mohit had no business to forcibly take possession. The plaintiffs claimed recovery of possession and mesne profit. The paragraphs that would be relevant for our consideration being paragraph 27, 36, 41 and the prayers being prayer (a), (b), (c) and (d) that are quoted below:

(3.) Mohit contested the suit however, we do not get the Written Statement for our perusal. We however, find at page-195-222 of the paper book, Mohit filed a Notes on Argument before the Special Referee wherein he would indicate his stand, particularly at page- 201-205, he would assert, he did not have any personal liability. We find, neither the plaintiff made any definite assertion as against Mohit in his personal capacity nor Mohit ever claimed so. We would be discussing in detail on this aspect little later.