9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udder Street, Calcutta-16 including the outhouse and garages to which the Durgapur Diocese is in possession and/or occupation, belong to the said Diocese of Durgapur to the exclusion of Diocese of Calcutta and the Durgapur Diocese alone has the executive right and title to use an enjoy the same; (b) A decree be passed declaring that until the properties of the Durgapur Diocese are demarcated and/or transferred and/or handed over to the Diocese of Durgapur in terms of the resolution of the CNI Synod from the Calcutta Diocese, the power of attorney executed by the Trustees of the Calcutta Diocese Trust Association in favour of the Durgapur Diocese be restored and the Durgapur Diocese will be legally entitled to collect all rents, issues and profits of the assets belonging to the said Diocese of Durgapur; (c) A decree be passed declaring that the CNI Synod Office bearers have no authority to extend the date of holding the Episcopal Election and in the event of any delay in holding such election the said CNI Synod Office bearers have no right and/or authority to appoint Moderator Commissary and/or Episcopal Commissary and the Executive Committee as well as the Diocesan Council of Durga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in full: This application was stand adjourned for one week from date. Affidavit-in-opposition and Affidavit-in-reply to be filed in the meantime. So far as the fixed properties concerned there would be an order of status-quo as of today till the disposal of the application. There would also be an order not to dissolve the committee in the meantime. It is recorded that Mr. Bishop Ghose has already taken over the charge. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order. 4. From the above it is seen that in relation to the properties an order of status quo as of today, that is, 15th September, 1988, had been passed by the court. It is complained that there is a violation of these three orders by the six respondents, Satyabrata Biswas, Rev. Bilash Chandra Das, Salil Biswas, Sushil Sharma, Rt. Rev. Dinesh Chandra Gorai and Rt. Rev. John E. Ghosh. The contempt was for: (1) putting a padlock to the main entrance of the premises on 3.7.1993; (2) disconnecting water supply, (3) obstructing sewerage line; and (4) preventing the appellants from getting the rooms repaired. 5. By an order dated 20th of July, 1993 the court directed to make an inventory in the rooms lying i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he circumstances of this case, we are prima facie satisfied that the company was in occupation of the disputed premises. Even a trespasser can be evicted only by due process of law. 9. Therefore it proceeded to appoint Joint Receivers with a direction to obtain the keys from the Officer-in-Charge Taltala Police Station. They would make an inventory of the rooms stated to have been occupied by Somani Builders Pvt. Ltd. opening the padlock which was fixed by the Special Officer. After making the inventory the Joint Receivers were directed to take possession of the said premises. They were also directed to allow Somani Builders to occupy the said premises for the purpose of carrying on business in the usual course. The occupation charges would be paid by the Somani Builders to the Joint Receivers without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. 10. Under these circumstances the present civil appeal by special leave has come to be preferred. 11. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that in view of status quo order dated 15th September, 1982 regarding the fixed property in possession of the Durgapur Diocese no tenancy or sub-tenancy rights could be created. It was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter of practice does not interfere in the interlocutory orders under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on two decisions: (i) State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Nandagopal, , (ii) State of Maharashtra v. Dadamya, 1971 CriLJ 1274 . 14. Learned Counsel for the respondent-tenant, A.K. Ghosh, would urge that he was the tenant of the premises from 1988 onwards. He had been specifically authorised to create a sub-tenancy by a resolution of Durgapur Diocese dated 11.3.1988 to grant the sub-lease. The order of status quo was against the parties who had been impleaded in the interlocutory application. 15. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned Counsel for Somani Builders would submit that the application for contempt was directed against the respondents therein. Where, therefore, they were directed to maintain the status quo, there was no legal disability on the part of the tenant, A.K. Ghosh to sub-let the property. Hence, if the sub-tenant had been lawfully inducted he can lawfully remain in possession of the premises as the same was directed to be handed over to the Joint Receivers by the learned Single Judge. It become necessary on the part of the Somani Builders to mention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the orders passed in the said suit was ever or is at all binding on any of them; (b) The tenant was inducted prior to the institution of the suit. The suit was instituted on 29th April, 1988 and prior thereto, the tenant was inducted: (c) On 20th May, 1988 the tenant was authorised to grant sub tenancy; (d) The suit was for a declaration that premises No. 16, Sudder Street, Calcutta including its out-house and garage belongs to the Diocese of Durgapur and Diocese of Durgapur has alone exclusive right, title and interest to use the same: (e) On 20.5.1988, the PARTIES to the suit were directed to maintain status quo in respect of RUNNING of Diocese of Durgapur till further order; (f) On 15.9.1988, the Calcutta High Court passed an order of status quo as of THE SAID DATE in regard to the fixed properties of Diocese of Durgapur; (g) The said orders were not, nor can claim to be binding on the tenant Ashok Kumar Ghosh; (h) In any event, the status quo order passed on 15.9.1988 which specifically mentioned that the same should be maintained as of 15.9.1988 cannot curtail the right of the tenant, which has been granted to him on 20.5.1988; (i) A status quo order with a specification th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the right of sub-tenancy was sought to be founded on an agreement dated 10th May, 1993, it should have occurred to the learned Single Judge that such a creation of sub-tenancy was clearly violative of the order of status quo passed as early as 15th of September, 1988. It is extremely unfortunate that the learned Judge had not even cared to bestow thought and entertained an oral application at the instance of a person who had nothing to do till then with the application for contempt. He had not even taken out an application to implead himself as a party. If mere oral mention could be enough to direct a Special Officer to remove the padlock, one has to put aside the law of procedure altogether and render justice as the court conceives, conferring benedictions on parties who cannot have any legal basis to found their claim. 21. Still worse was to follow. When the appellants before us complained of this direction by the learned Single Judge to remove the padlock, the Division Bench followed a novel procedure. We have already extracted its finding in relation to the validity of sub-tenancy. Having held in no uncertain terms whether or not the Somani Builders is lawfully a sub tenant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect of violating the preservation of status of the property. This will all the more be so when this was done without the leave of the court to disturb the state of things as they then stood. It would amount to violation of the order. The principle contained in the maxim: 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit' has no application at all to the facts of this case when in violation of status quo order a sub-tenancy has been created. Equally, the contention that even a trespasser cannot be evicted without recourse to law is without merit, because the state of affairs in relation to property as on 15.9.1988 is what the Court is concerned with. Such an order cannot be circumvented by parties with impunity and expect the court to confer its blessings. It does not matter that to the contempt proceedings Somani Builders was not a party. It cannot gain an advantage in derogation of the rights of the parties, who were litigating originally. If the right of sub-tenancy is recognised, how is status quo as of 15.9.1988 maintained? Hence, the grant of sub-lease is contrary to the order of status quo. Any act done in the teeth of the order of status quo is clearly illegal. All actions including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
