Allowed

Art Reeves Exim (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, W.B.S.E.D.Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Calcutta HC16 Aug 2023CO/1457/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a revision application challenging the impleadment of the State of West Bengal in an eviction suit, holding it was not a proper party. The order was quashed, and the trial court directed to proceed expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order impleading State of West Bengal set aside; learned trial court directed to proceed with eviction suit expeditiously.

Art Reeves Exim (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chairman, W.B.S.E.D.Co… — Property and Title | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

16.8.2023 ct. 236 sk,sl. 44

¶2

C.O. 1457 of 2011

¶3

Art reeves Exim(I) Pvt. Ltd.-vs-Chairman, WBSEDC Ltd. & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Sujit Sankar Koley …for the petitioner.

¶5

None is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Sujit Sankar Koley, learned counsel is

¶7

representing the opposite parties.

¶8

It is submitted by Mr. Koley that since the petitioner is not interested, this application may be dismissed for default.

¶9

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Robin Thapa Vs Rohit Dora, reported in AIR 2019 S.C.C. 3225 held that:

¶10

“8 Ordinarily a litigation is based on adjudication on the merits of the contentions of the parties. Litigation should not be terminated by default, either of the plaintiff or the defendant. The cause of justice does require that as far as possible, adjudication be done on merits”.

¶11

Therefore, I am inclined to dispose of the application on merit based on materials available with the records.

¶12

The petitioner Art Reeves Exim(I) Pvt. Ltd., the company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 claimed to have purchased the property where the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company was inducted as tenant in

¶13

¶14

respect of an area measuring about 3345 sq. ft. on the first floor of a building situated on the plot No. 9187, Khatian No. 126 under Mouza-Siliguri, District-Darjeeling under Sri Chandan Moitra and Bhola Nath Moitra. Subsequently, the property devolved upon Smt. Bela Moitra, Smt. Bani Moitra and Siddhartha Moitra by way of inheritance and rate of rent was revived and fixed at Rs. 2435 per month.

¶15

Pursuant to an argument dated 30^th July, 2001 by and between the landlords and the Divisional Engineer, Siliguri (O & M) Division, subsequently, Smt. Bela Moitra and Bani Moitra and Siddhartha Moitra sold and transferred the said property to the petitioner, Art Reeves Exim(I) Pvt. Ltd. Despite attornment the tenants, the opposite parties herein did not pay rent. The tenancy was thereafter terminated by a notice under Section 6(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Since the opposite parties failed to act in terms of the notice of eviction, Title Suit No. 226 of 2008 was filed for recovery of possession and during pendency of such suit, the defendant started construction over the vacant portion of the property without consent of the learned trial court and in the written statement

¶16

¶17

the defendants not only denied the title of the plaintiff/petitioner, in their pleadings but also made State of West Bengal as the owner of the landlord. Thereafter, an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the defendants to implead the Collector, Darjeeling and O.C. and SRO(ii) Land & Land Reforms Officer of Siliguri Municipal area. Learned trial court was pleased to allow the prayer of the defendants/opposite parties and by the order impugned State of West Bengal has been impleaded as party defendant. In a suit for eviction learned trial court had no reason to impleade the State of West Bengal. State cannot be held to be proper party, far to speak necessary party in a suit for eviction.

¶18

The order impunged shows that learned trial court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and the impugned order should not be allowed to remain in force and should be set aside which I accordingly do.

¶19

The revisional application is thus disposed

¶20

of.

¶21

The order of stay, if any, stands vacated.

¶22

Learned trial court is directed to proceed

¶23

¶24

with the suit for eviction of premises tenant according to law as expeditiously as possible.

¶25

Since the defendant/tenant was not inducted by the present plaintiff/petitioner, the defendant will be at liberty to prove in course of trial that the plaintiff/petitioner is not the landlord of the defendants/opposite parties.

¶26

( Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J)

Art Reeves Exim (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, W.B.S.E.D.Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Art Reeves Exim (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, W.B.S.E.D.Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamata Goswami Vs Dilpali Shil and Ors.

Sajal Mukhopadhyay Vs State of West Bengal

Bhabesh Kumar Ghosh & Ors. Vs State

Santosh Kumar Acharya Vs Krishnapada Acharya & Anr.

Sanatan Dharma Vidyalaya Trust & Ors. Vs M/S. Shanti Construction & Ors.

Shiw Kumar Sharda Vs Shiv Kumar Kothari