DILIP KUMAR BAJAJ Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, METRO RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment and order dtd. 20/2/2020 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal in Misc. Appeal no. 02 of 2016 arising out of Claim Case no. 01 of 1993, moved this court, which has given rise to the instant matter.

(2.) It can be seen that the instant matter has a long career spreading over more than three decades. The petitioners filed a claim application being case no. 01 of 1993 before the competent authority for determination of damages under Sec. 25 and 22 of the Metro Railways (construction of works) Act 1978 (in short Act of 1978), stating that the petitioners were the lawful owners of premises no. 170A Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta which is a five storied building and fully occupied by tenants comprised of shops on the ground floor and one branch of Syndicate Bank on the first floor. The petitioner's only source of income is the monthly rents realized from the tenants. As per the notification dtd. 3/8/1980, by the Metro Railways Authority, the petitioners demolished the front portion of the said building for which petitioners received compensation. Petitioners further case is that in the year 1988-1989, when metro construction work started along Chittaranjan Avenue from Esplanade to Belgachia Sec. , crack started appearing on the brick walls of the building, in the month of August 1989 as the excavation work progressed in front of the building. Accordingly petitioners brought it to the notice of Metro Railway Authority in August, 1989 when the authorities inspected the building. By February, 1992 the damages to the building including premises no. 170B Chittaranjan Avenue reached an alarming stage and the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short KMC) issued notice to the petitioners and advised to repair the building as it had become the source of potential hazard to the neighborhood. The Metro Railway Authorities asked the tenants to vacate their respective position and shift elsewhere for which they offered them compensation of Rs.1200.00 per month. The branch of Syndicate Bank was occupying the major portion of the first floor of the said building as a tenant and they vacated the said premises in September 1992 after terminating lease agreement because of the unsafe condition of the building. Accordingly petitioners filed aforesaid claim case no. 01 of 1993 claiming compensation from Metro Railway Administration for the loss of earnings by way of rent from the Syndicate Bank for the remaining period of tenancy for about ten years for a total amount of Rs.47,13,558.92.

(3.) The Metro Authority contested the case by filing written objection and in their objection they pleaded that they were not aware of any lease with the Syndicate Bank or its termination or commencement. However, they have not denied that they issued notice upon the tenants to vacate the premises in the interest of safety. During pendency of the proceeding, one amendment was made in the main claim application to the effect that aforesaid Syndicate Bank was tenant at the first floor and they got tenancy under Tee Jay Properties/lessee, who surrendered the lease in favour of the claimants/petitioners in February 1992.