Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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