MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Unauthorized Occupation Cannot Be Tolerated: High Court of Calcutta Orders Recovery of Possession

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

Justice Krishna Rao emphasizes tenants’ rights and directs enquiry into mesne profits.

The High Court at Calcutta, in a significant judgment delivered by Justice Krishna Rao on July 10, 2024, has ordered the recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of a property from unauthorized occupants. The plaintiff, Turner Morrison Ltd., successfully argued that the defendants, including Julie’s Herbal Beauty Clinic, had no legal right to occupy the premises. The court also directed an enquiry to determine mesne profits, appointing a Special Officer to ascertain the financial loss due to unauthorized occupation.

Turner Morrison Ltd., a lawful tenant of a flat at 36, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta, sought to recover possession from the defendants, who were unlawfully occupying the property. The initial temporary occupation by Defendant No.1, who was then a director of the plaintiff company, extended beyond the agreed period. Furthermore, Defendant No.1 unlawfully inducted third parties into the premises. Despite notices and the death of Defendant No.1, the remaining defendants continued the occupation, leading to the plaintiff’s legal action for recovery and mesne profits.

The court acknowledged the extensive documentary evidence presented by the plaintiff, including rental receipts, corporate records, and reports from a court-appointed Receiver. These documents established the plaintiff’s consistent payment of rent and the unauthorized occupation by the defendants. “The evidence adduced by the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff company has never inducted the defendant nos. 2 to 7 as tenant in the suit premises,” Justice Krishna Rao noted.

Justice Rao underscored that the defendants had no legal standing to occupy the premises. The unauthorized induction of third parties by Defendant No.1 was particularly highlighted. “The defendant no.1 had no right, title, and interest over the suit premises and has no authority to induct any third party in the suit premises,” the judgment stated.

The court reaffirmed the principles of property law and tenancy rights, emphasizing that the plaintiff, as the lawful tenant, retained the right to recover possession. Citing precedents, the court held that the defendants’ continued occupation constituted an illegal act, thereby entitling the plaintiff to reclaim the property.

Justice Krishna Rao stated, “In view of the above, this Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to get decree for recovery of possession of Flat No. 5, situated on the second floor of the building at the premises no.36, Shakespeare Sarani (formally known as Theatre Road), Kolkata.”

The judgment marks a significant affirmation of tenancy rights and the legal avenues available for recovering possession from unauthorized occupants. By ordering an enquiry into mesne profits, the court aims to ensure that the plaintiff is compensated for the financial losses incurred due to the illegal occupation. The Special Officer’s report, due in four months, will further elucidate the monetary impact on Turner Morrison Ltd. This ruling is expected to influence future cases involving tenancy disputes and unauthorized occupations.

 

Date of Decision: July 10, 2024

Turner Morrison Ltd. V. Julie’s Herbal Beauty Clinic & Ors.

  •  

Latest Legal News