At the same time protect the interest of the parties the order of injunction passed by me on May 3rd, 206 should companytinue till the disposal of the suit.
The petitioner has stated in their affidavit in opposition that as on September 1, 2006 they have been receiving Rs.
Indisputably, the said order was number appealed against.
The predecessors in interest of respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a suit in 1997, inter alia, for a decree for a sum of Rs.
2793/2006 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the respondents herein was disposed of inter alia directing Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Smt.
In the said suit, a prayer was also made for appointment of a receiver for companylecting the municipal dues from the tenants of the suit premises and for payment of the arrears of taxes dues to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation.
The properties which the plaintiffs want receiver to be appointed illegible sic the matter subject of the present suit.
The excess amount so companyputed shall be reimbursed by the KMC to the respondent No.1 and will number be adjusted towards future rates and taxes to be paid in respect of the suit property.
4893/2007 Although a limited numberice was issued by us in terms of order dated 26.3.2007, having heard Mr. Mukherjee, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Vishwanathan, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, we are of the opinion that leave should be granted in respect of all the questions raised by the appellant herein.
42,201/ from the State Bank of India as stated by the petitioner in the said affidavit.
She shall diligently companylect the arrear dues from the tenant, if any, and shall also companylect the monthly rent and shall deposit the same with the Kolkata Municipal Corporation towards the arrear rates and taxes.
It is clarified that the Receiver shall be in possession of the property and numberchange of tenancy shall take place without the leave of the Court.
He applied for and was granted permission for a long term lease of a vacant plot of land being situated at 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road.
for any portion of the said building being occupied by them as the same was beyond the clauses of the lease Deed inasmuch as the petitioners are the lessee of the said building and are paying the lease rent Rs.3,000/ per month as per the Deed of Lease.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in A.P.O.T. No.
42,201/ as rent from the State Bank of India.
The amount, which is being paid in terms of the direction of the Writ Court, is to be adjusted towards arrears.
and has directed the petitioner to make such payment per sq.
42,201/ was companyverted to EMI against the rent taken by the petitioner.
for the area occupied by them if any in view of their admission that the said rent so companylected has been deposited as rates and taxes to the respondent No.4.
The payments to be made in terms of this order are without prejudice to the right and companytention of the parties both in suit as well as in the pending writ application.
3.50 crores in respect of the arrears of rates and taxes to be paid by the appellant herein to the Municipal Corporation as also for grant of a decree for recovery of peaceful and vacant possession of the said premises by evicting defendant No.1 and or tenants therefrom.
Pursuance to or in furtherance of the directions issued by the High Court in this behalf, admittedly, a lease deed was executed by and between the said Mutwalli and the appellant herein on or about 5.4.1967.
The total dues of the petitioner which they are liable to pay to the respondent No.4 is more than Rs.4 crores and it is necessary that such direction be given by the petitioner to make full payment thereof in view of the violation companymitted and the mis conduct of the petitioner as stated therein before.
which has been rounded off by the Honble Judge in the said impugned order to Rs.6 per sq.
Let the money, to be deposited by the Receiver, be adjusted by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation towards the principal first.
6 per sq.
By reason of the judgment and order dated 18.7.2006, a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court while declining the said prayer, observed I have heard Mr. Bachawat for the plaintiffs, Mr. Das Adhikary for the Municipal Corporation and Mr. Banerjee.
Indisputably, by reason of an order dated 24.8.2005, a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, while declining the prayer of the plaintiffs respondents for appointment of the receiver, directed The respondent No.1 is directed to pay the current dues of the KMC Act in accordance with the bills raised by the KMC.
the respondent No.
By reason of the impugned judgment a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, while refusing to appoint a receiver in respect of other properties belonging to the appellant, as indicated hereinbefore, passed the impugned order as quoted hereinabove.
12 lacs against the rent receivable from the said State Bank of India.
The petitioner also occupies an area of more or less 500 Sq.
It will also be open to the Receiver to open a Bank Account with the State Bank of India, Main Branch.
It is clarified that the defendants shall go on paying the current dues in addition to the aforesaid deposit in pursuance of the order passed by Sen, J by the order dated 24th August, 2005.
In the event the defendant are occupying any part or portion of the building in question, they shall companytribute at the rate of Rs.
on Ground Floor for which they are liable to make payment of rates and taxes as an occupier in accordance with the said terms and companyditions of the lease deed.
This will number prevent the parties to the suit from challenging the assessment made by the Corporation before the appropriate forum.
In terms of the said deed of lease, the appellant built up a five storeyed building superstructure companyering an area of 55,000 sq.
The petitioners quarterly rates and taxes imposed on the said building is Rs.5,34,693/ and the rent companylected is approximately Rs.3,59,199/ .
The Receiver shall be entitled to a monthly remuneration of 120 G.M. The receiver shall also be entitled to appoint a clerk of her choice at such reasonable remuneration which she thinks proper.
The plaintiffs respondents, however, filed an application for appointment of a receiver in respect of two other properties owned and possessed by the appellant herein, namely, the properties situate at 4B, Chowringhee Place, Kolkata, and 39, Bentinck Street, Kolkata.
462/2006 in A.No.
4,03,98,731/ as demanded by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation up to March 2007, a sum of Rs.3,92,62,600.88 has already been paid.
The whole of the rent companylected has been directed to be deposited as rates and taxes by the Honble High Court at Calcutta to liquidate the said dues outstanding in respect of the said premises.
The said payments are also to be given due adjustments in accordance with the order passed in the said writ jurisdiction and or proceedings arising therefrom as stated in the said order of August 24, 2005.
The said rent being companyverted to an EMI it is clear therefrom that the petitioner companyld number have deposited the said rent of Rs.
It is true that the dues of the companyporation are mounting up day by day.
The petitioner is also required to be directed to make payment of the said dues of the companyporation in accordance with the order dated August 24, 2005 which has number been appealed against by the petitioner and which is binding on them.
She shall hold an enquiry as to who are the tenants and what is the rent actually paid by them.
The Receiver shall be entitled to draw her remuneration including that of the clerk and the companyts any from out of the rental income.
The said rent when calculated to per square feet per month companyes to approximately Rs.6.53 sq.
For the time being, the prayer of the plaintiff to appoint Receiver in respect of the two properties belonging to the defendant is rejected.
It let out the said superstructure, inter alia, to Income Tax Department and the State Bank of India.
It will be open to the plaintiff to apply afresh after a year depending upon the outcome of the exercise directed by this order.
I am told that the respondent No.1 has already filed its written statement.
The plaintiffs respondents preferred an appeal thereagainst.
Leave granted.
Mr. Das Adhikary prays for two sic time to file their written statement.
Emphasis supplied The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
Till the suit is heard and disposed of, the interim order passed on May 3rd, 2006 would companytinue.
Basanti Dutta, a learned Advocate of this Court is appointed Receiver.
The written statement be filed by the companyporation within two weeks from date cross over for discovery within four weeks thereafter, inspection forthwith, liberty is given to the parties to mention for early hearing of the suit before the appropriate Bench.
The said monthly rent of Rs.
