Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

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.

  •  

Similar News