Eyewitness Consistency is Key in Upholding Murder Convictions," Rules Rajasthan High Court State Cannot Take the Defence of Adverse Possession Against an Individual, Rules MP High Court in Land Encroachment Case Ignoring Crucial Evidence is an Illegal Approach: P&H High Court in Remanding Ancestral Property Dispute for Fresh Appraisal A Litigant Should Not Suffer for the Mistakes of Their Advocate: Madras High Court Overturns Rejection of Plaint in Specific Performance Suit 20% Interim Compensation is Not Optional in Cheque Bounce Appeals, Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court Presumption of Innocence Fortified by Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Verdict in Accident Case Absence of Fitness Certificate Invalidates Insurance Claim, Rules MP High Court: Statutory Requirement Can't Be Ignored Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Protection for Live-In Couple Amidst Pending Divorce Proceedings Reassessment Must Be Based on New Tangible Material: Delhi High Court Quashes IT Proceedings Against Samsung India Kerala High Court Denies Bail to Police Officer Accused of Raping 14-Year-Old: 'Grave Offences Demand Strict Standards' Repeated Writ Petitions Unacceptable: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Land Acquisition Challenge Delhi High Court Upholds Validity of Reassessment Notices Issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers in Light of Faceless Assessment Scheme Adverse Possession Claims Fail Without Proof of Hostile Possession: Madras High Court Temple's Ancient Land Rights Upheld: Kerala High Court Rejects Adverse Possession Claims Expulsion Must Be Exercised in Good Faith — Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Adjudication in Partnership Dispute Instigation Requires Reasonable Certainty to Incite the Consequence: Delhi High Court in Suicide Case

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