RINA SINGH Vs. BISWAJIT GHOSH BAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : The petitioners, the owners of the property situate at 18/1, Dalimtala lane, Kolkata - 700 006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said premises') have filed the suit claiming, inter alia, a declaration that the registered sale agreement dated February 4, 2019 executed on their behalf by the respondent no.3 thereby transferring an unit of 455 square feet, on the ground floor of the building to be constructed at the said premises in favour of the respondent no.1 is fraudulent, null and void and not binding upon them.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that they entered into an agreement dated November 12, 2011 with the respondent no.2 company for development of the said premises by constructing a multistoried building at the said premises. The respondent no.3 is one of the directors of the respondent no.2 company, the developer. For the purpose of implementation of the development agreement by a deed of power of attorney dated December 27, 2011 the petitioners engaged the respondent no.3, one of the directors of the respondent no.2 company as their lawful attorney to do certain acts. According to the petitioners, under the development agreement it was their obligation to negotiate with the existing tenants of the said premises and they never conferred any power on the respondent no.3 to enter into any negotiation with any of the existing tenants to sell any portion of the new building on the ground floor falling within their allotment.

(3.) The respondent no.1 herein is a tenant of a shop room on the ground floor of the existing building at the said premises against whom the petitioners have filed an eviction suit before the Second Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court. In a revisional application filed before this Court against an order passed by the second Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, the respondent no.1 for the first time disclosed the copy of the sale agreement dated February 4, 2019 executed by the respondent no.3, on behalf of the petitioners, in favour of the respondent no.1. Since the respondent no.3 executed the said sale agreement dated February 4, 2019 without any authority the petitioners revoked the said power of attorney dated December 27, 2011 and by a communication dated March 18, 2019 they informed the respondent no.3 of the same. However, the respondent no.3 has not replied to the said letter dated March 18, 2019. According to the petitioners, the said sale agreement dated February 4, 2019 is not only vitiated by wrongful and illegal acts committed by the respondent no.3, the same is also vitiated by fraud committed upon them by the respondent no.s 1, 2 and 3 and, as such, the said sale agreement is not binding upon them. The petitioners have also disclosed documents to show that the name of the respondent no.2 company has been struck off from the records of the Register of Companies.