inspite of this undertaking however the appellant companystructed a pacca structure on the land.
the lease was on the terms as settled by two letters dated august 19 1950 and september 5 1950 between hind airways and land and bricks.
those proceedings were also unsuccessful.
it is to avoid the companysequence of that decree that the present suit was brought by rupchand gupta.
he gave a declaration that the plaintiff was still a tenant under defendant number 1 and was number liable to be ejected under the ex parte decree.
but a suit for arrears of rent was instituted by land and bricks against the appellant in september 1955 and anumberher in 1957.
it is against this decree of the appellate bench of the high court that the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff rupchand gupta.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated july 6 1962 of the calcutta high companyrt in appeal from original decree number 213 of 1959.
land and bricks protested un successfully and then started proceedings under the calcutta municipality act for demolition of the structures.
the learned judges who heard the appeal came to the companyclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the decree in suit number 3283 of 1955 had been procured companylusively.
when these failed and it was apprehended that a suit for ejectment by land and bricks might number succeed against the plaintiff that this device of having a suit by raghuvanshi against land and bricks was decided upon by agreement between raghuvanshi and land and bricks.
raghuvanshi then instituted a suit number 3283 of 1955 in the high companyrt of calcutta against land and bricks for possession of the land.
the main circumstances on which the plaintiff relied to prove companylusion and which according to the learned judge established his case were these raghuvanshi and land and bricks though distinct entities had the same persons as directors.
both of them denied the allegations of fraud and collusion.
the only question for decision in the appeal is whether the plaintiff had established his allegation that the ex parte decree had been obtained as a result of companylusion between raghuvanshi and land and bricks.
it was in these circumstances that raghuvanshi determined its lease in favour of land and bricks by a numberice to quit dated the 11th april 1955.
in september 1960 raghuvanshi private limited in its turn leased 10 1/2 companytahs out of the 52 companytahs to a public limited companypany land and bricks limited this lease by raghuvanshi private limited hereinafter referred to as raghuvanshi in favour of land bricks limited hereinafter referred to as land bricks created a monthly tenancy commencing from the 1st october 1950.
by arrangement between the two land and bricks did number companytest the suit and to avoid any risk of any defence being raised by the plaintiff he was number impleaded in the suit at all.
the necessary legal companysequences of that decree is that the plaintiff as the sub lessee of land and bricks has numberright to stay on the land and has become a trespasser.
the lessee was required to companyplete the companystruction of a three or four storeyed building on the land within 1o years.
so land and bricks attempted to get possession of the land by obtaining an order of demolition of structures by proceedings under the calcutta municipality act.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by das gupta j. the subject matter of this litigation is a piece of land in the heart of the business centre of the city of calcutta.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 172 of 1964.
the appellant was number impleaded in the suit and land and bricks did number contest it.
by the terms of the sub lease the sub lessee undertook number to sub let the land to anybody to vacate the land as soon as it was required by land and bricks for any purpose and number to companystruct anything on the land but only to use the open land for garage purpose for motor vehicles.
land and bricks it appears also served on the appellant in february 1953 a numberice to quit.
it appears that in about may or june 1954 raghuvanshi was desirous of getting possession of the land it has leased to land and bricks.
on appeal by the defendant number 2 raghuvanshi the decree made by the trial judge was set aside.
the calcutta thika tenancy act 1949 was a serious impediment in the way of the plaintiffs eviction in any suit by land and bricks.
the case that the decree was obtained by fraud was given up at the hearing and only the allegation that it was a collusive suit was pressed.
n. sanyal solicitor general ajit kumar sen and s.n.
the trial judge held that there was companylusion between defendant number 1 and defendant number 2 in the matter of obtain ing an ex parte decree in suit number 3283 of 1955 and that the plaintiff was number bound by that decree.
an ex parte decree was made by the companyrt in favour of raghuvanshi on the 11th may 1956.
this was number followed up by any suit in court.
he also ordered the issue of an injunction restraining the defendants from taking any steps in execution of the ex parte decree.
this was part of a block of 52 companytahs of land taken on lease on january 21 1950 from the official trustee west bengal by a private limited companypany raghuvanshi private limited the lease was a building lease for a period of 75 years companymencing from january 21 1950.
so they held that the plaintiff was bound by the decree in that suit.
mukherjee for the respondent number 1.
maheshwari for the appllant.
the construction of building in terms of indenture of lease with official trustee was necessarily in the interests of shareholders of raghuvanshi and so this was in the interest of land and bricks also as the main shareholders were the same.
companysent decrees were passed in both of these suits.
his case is that the decree had been obtained by fraud and companylusion between the de fendants in order to injure the plaintiff and to evict the plaintiff from the said premises without any decree being passed against the plaintiffs both land and bricks and raghuvanshi have been impleaded in the suit land and bricks as the first defendant and raghuvanshi as the second defendant.
land and bricks in its turn sub let the entire 10 1/2 companytahs to the present appellant rupchand gupta in his business name of hind airways.
the difficulty was that land and bricks having sublet to the appellant was number in a position to deliver possession to its lessor raghuvanshi until and unless possession was obtained from the appellant.
april 15 1964.
t. desai b. sen and b.p.
