9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of contract, kept in a warehouse at premise owned by the Kolkata Port Trust, for rent due to the Kolkata Port Trust, from its lessees and/or tenants. 2. The petitioner No. 2, as proprietor of the petitioner No. 1, carries on business inter alia of import and export of diverse goods as specified in the petition. It is claimed that in usual course of business the petitioners imported diverse goods from Vietnam and Indonesia between August 2006 and March 2007. The aforesaid goods were stored at a warehouse run by the respondent No. 5, M/s. Sea Rock Commerce Ltd., hereinafter referred to as Sea Rock at premises owned by Kolkata Port Trust. 3. The respondent No. 4, M/s. Warren Industrial, hereinafter referred to as respondent Warren, was at all material times a lessee under the respondent No. 1. Respondent Warren inducted respondent Sea Rock to occupy the said warehouse. 4.The petitioners claim to have been storing goods at the warehouse for consideration. 5. The respondent No. 1 initiated eviction proceedings against the Respondent Warren under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. On or about 6th February, 2007, an order was pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout approval of Kolkata Port Trust, Respondent Warren rendered itself liable to eviction and the order of eviction was rightly passed. The petitioners are not questioning the eviction of Respondent Warren or Respondent Sea Rock. 9. The question before this Bench is, whether the goods of the petitioners could, on the facts pleaded be detained and/or sold to realise the entire rent due from Respondent Warren to Kolkata Port Trust from the inception of the tenancy. 10. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, submitted that the respondent No. 1 was entitled in law to retain the goods and sell the same to realise the rent due from the tenant/lessee. 11. Mr. Mukherjee argued that Section 59 of the Major Port Trusts Act read with Section 6 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 gave Kolkata Port Trust, a right of lien in respect of all goods or articles lying at the public premises if rent was due in respect of the premises. Such a wide interpretation of Section 59 of the Major Port Trusts Act to confer right of lient on any goods or articles lying at the public premises in respect of which rent w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise of its lien, the board is empowered to sell the said goods for realisation of the amount due to it. Reading the two sections together it is clear that the goods which can be sold in exercise of its lien are only those in respect of which rates due to the Board have not been fully paid. Coming to the facts of the instant case the amount which was claimed by the appellants was in respect of the consignment of woolen rags. There can be little doubt that in respect of the amount claimed by the Board the provisions of Ss. 59 and 61(1) would have been applicable with regard to the said consignment of woolen rags. But the contention now is that it is in respect of the said dues, relatable to woolen rags, that the Board has a general lien on the subsequent consignment of acrylic fibre. This contention is clearly untenable because, as we have already observed, Ss. 59 and 61(1) give a lien on those goods in respect of which amount is claimed or due under S. 59. The Board was not demanding or claiming lien on acrylic fibre on the ground that any amount in respect of acrylic fibre was due. Once it appears that the lien referred to in Ss. 59 and 61(1) is only (on) those goods in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods against the confiscation of his goods but for the purpose of giving him an opportunity to purchase the same in public auction and to law claim over the balance amount of the sale-proceeds, if any, remains after meeting the liability of the unauthorised occupier. The learned Single Judge, therefore, erred in law in holding that the writ-petitioner could not be held liable for the dues of the unlawful occupant, unless some sort of link, between the writ-petitioner and the unlawful occupant against whom the order of eviction was sought to be executed, is established. The fact, that the agent of the writ-petitioner, without taking due care to ascertain the ownership of the land, kept the goods on the land of the Port Trust Authority without taking any permission, was sufficient to attract the provision contained in Section 6 of the Act. The learned Single Judge, as it appears from the order impugned, did not consider the statutory provisions mentioned above." 16. The earlier judgement of the division Bench in Indian Rayon Corporation (supra) had not been cited before the Division Bench. The attention of the Division Bench was also not drawn to the judgement of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption of the tenancy. 24. The earlier judgement of the Division Bench in Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. Anr. (supra) had not been cited before the Division Bench. The attention of the Division Bench was also not drawn to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sreyanesh Knitters (supra). Had the attention of the Division Bench been drawn to the aforesaid judgements, the decision in Canoro Resources Ltd. may have been otherwise. 25. There is no provision in the 1971 Act, which enables the respondent to retain the goods of an unauthorised occupant. Section 5(1) empowers the Estate Officer to pass an order of eviction, directing that the public premises should be vacated by all persons in occupation thereof, forthwith or within the time specified in the order of eviction. 26. It is only when an order of eviction is not complied with on or before the date specified that the Estate Officer might evict the unauthorised occupants. 27. In Canoro Resources Ltd. (supra) also, the Division Bench did not hold that the 1971 Act in itself authorised retention of goods for the purpose of sale. It was on a conjoint reading of Section 6 of the 1971 Act with Sections 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
