9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Declaration of title and possession of the disputed property. 2. Alleged contempt of court orders. 3. Validity of sub-tenancy created by A.K. Ghosh in favor of Somani Builders. 4. Jurisdiction and propriety of court orders in contempt proceedings. Summary: 1. Declaration of Title and Possession: The first respondent filed a suit seeking a declaration that the premises at No. 16, Sudder Street, Calcutta, including the outhouse and garages, belong to the Durgapur Diocese. The suit also sought to prevent any disturbance to the possession of the Durgapur Diocese and to restrain the defendants from interfering with the functions of the Diocesan Council and Executive Committee. 2. Alleged Contempt of Court Orders: Pending the suit, an interlocutory application led to an order dated May 20, 1988, directing the maintenance of status quo regarding the Durgapur Diocese. This order was modified on June 1, 1988, and further orders were passed on September 15, 1988, maintaining the status quo concerning the fixed properties. The contempt allegations included padlocking the main entrance, disconnecting water supply, obstructing the sewerage line, and preventing repairs. 3. Validity of Sub-Tenancy: The appellants contended that A.K. Ghosh, who allegedly created a sub-tenancy in favor of Somani Builders, had no authority to do so, especially in light of the status quo order dated September 15, 1988. The court observed that whether Somani Builders was a lawful sub-tenant could not be decided in the contempt proceedings and that even a trespasser could only be evicted by due process of law. 4. Jurisdiction and Propriety of Court Orders: The court criticized the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, which allowed Somani Builders to occupy the premises despite the status quo order. The court emphasized that the status quo referred to the state of affairs as of September 15, 1988, and any sub-tenancy created thereafter was in violation of this order. The court held that the orders directing the removal of the padlock and allowing possession to Somani Builders were unwarranted and beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge, directing that the parties be relegated to the position as on September 15, 1988. Somani Builders was ordered to deliver vacant possession to the Special Officer within one month. The learned Single Judge was directed to dispose of the contempt application properly, confining to contempt jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed with costs to be borne equally by Respondents 1 and 2.
|
