Withdrawal of Divorce Consent Protected as Statutory Right Under Hindu Marriage Act" Delhi High Court Allows Aspirants to Rejoin Indian Coast Guard Recruitment Process Despite Document Discrepancies Unmerited Prosecution Violates Article 21: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Fraud Case Access to Prosecution Evidence Is Integral to a Fair Trial: Kerala HC Permits Accused to View CCTV Footage A Reasonable Doubt Is One Which Renders the Possibility of Guilt As Highly Doubtful: Madras High Court Submission of Qualification Documents at Any Stage Valid: MP High Court Overturns Appointment Process in Anganwadi Assistant Case" High Court Must Ensure Genuineness of Settlement Before Quashing Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Patna High Court Acquits All Accused in Political Murder Case, Citing Eyewitness Contradictions and Lack of Evidence Opportunity for Rehabilitation Must Be Given: Uttarakhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Child Rape Case Right to Travel Abroad is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21; Pending Inquiry Cannot Justify Restriction: Rajasthan High Court First Appellate Court Could Not Reopen Issues Already Decided: Orissa High Court Kerala High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case, Reaffirms Principle of “Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception” Debts Recovery Tribunal Can Condon Delay in Section 17 SARFAESI Applications: Gauhati High Court Rajasthan High Court: "Ex-Parte Interim Orders Should Not Derail Public Infrastructure Projects" Sovereign Functions In Public Interest Cannot Be Taxed As Services: High Court Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh Quashes Service Tax Madras High Court: Adoption Deeds Not Registrable Without Compliance With Statutory Framework Taxation Law | Relief for Telecom Giants: Supreme Court Rules Mobile Towers Are Movable, Not Immovable Property Absence of Premeditation Justifies Reduction to Culpable Homicide: Supreme Court Alters Murder Conviction Mere Breakup of a Consensual Relationship Cannot Lead to Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Alleging Rape on False Promise of Marriage Hindu Widow’s Limited Estate Remains Binding, Section 14(2) of Hindu Succession Act Affirmed: Supreme Court Burden of Proof to Establish Co-Tenancy Rests on the Claimant: Supreme Court Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver

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