Aggrieved against this order, the present appeal was filed by the appellant.
A suit was also filed against applicant in Sealdah Court .
Offers were invited by issuing advertisement on November 20, 1985 and an offer was made by Harvard House, Montessori School on November 12, 1985, respondent No.1 was In charge of the said school.
There are two properties bearing No.21/1/C and 21/1/D at Gora Chand Road, Calcutta.
So far as the Premises No.
But it was made clear that the Court had number gone into the merits of the respective companytention that whether despite the violation of the term No.6 in the letter of offer dated November 12, 1985 the applicant companyld maintain a suit for specific performance of the companytract.
Though Court earlier directed joint receiver to file suit against respondent No.
The respondent No.1 paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000 as security and rent at the rate of Rs.6,500/ per month and Rs.900/ for the maintenance of driving ways and lawns.
It was also companytended that the High Court directed by order dated August 11, 1987 to joint receiver to file a suit for illegal companystruction against Respondent No.
21/1/D and also a cheque for a sum of Rs.
The order dated May 5, 1986 reads as under Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
It appears that the offer made by Harvard House, 17 Camac Street, Calcutta 700 017, is the highest.
21/1/D of which possession was delivered to Respondent No.1 on 16th June, 1986 for which the Court has already passed the order on 15th January, 1987 to take legal action against the Harvard House, Respondent No.
As such, there was numberneed for the Division Bench to companysider the application filed by the applicant respondent herein .
21/1/D as alleged by joint receivers.
Leave is accordingly granted to the applicants in terms of prayers a and b of this application to let out the premises to Harvard House, 17 Camac Street, Calcutta 700 017 for a period of twenty one years on terms companytained in the letter of offer dated November 12, 1985 as annexed to the affidavit in reply to this application.
The lease deed was number executed under the orders of Court.
1 but that suit was number prosecuted and it was dismissed in default.
1 herein for violation of terms of lease with regard to illegal companystruction on the premises No.
It was also pointed out that after the death of Smt.
As a result of this, the offer of respondent No.1 who being the highest bidder was accepted and the rent was fixed at Rs.6500 per month with other companyditions.
In the meanwhile some developments took place which has numbermaterial bearing, but it was brought to our numberice that Respondent No.
So far as the recovery of sum of Rs.
The SLPs filed against both the orders dated 11th August, 1987 and 4th December, 1987 were also dismissed on 2nd January, 1995, the result was that both the orders stood affirmed, though some observations were made by this Court while dismissing S.L.Ps.
It was also submitted that S.L.Ps.
were filed against both these orders, both orders have been maintained by Apex Court and S.L.Ps.
preferred a Special Leave Petition before this Court.
More so, all the material facts were number brought to the numberice of this Court, that meanwhile the first appeal out of which all the litigations arose had already stood disposed of by way of companypromise on 3rd October, 1988.
21/1/C or to deliver possession to the applicant.
This order was reaffirmed by subsequent order dated 4th December, 1989 by Division Bench and numberdirection was given for executing the lease deed in favour of respondent No.1 for premises No.
This case involves a very chequered history.
21/1/C failed and subsequently Division Bench cannot sit over the matter and review it.
The said application of the respondent No.1 was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta Justice S.P. Das Gosh Justice L.M. Ghosh by order dated August 11, 1987.
After this order dated January 2, 1995, present application was moved before the High Court for direction and orders upon the Administrators cum Receivers, that is how the matter came up before the High Court.
Therefore, that prayer was rejected.
It was also pointed out that it was number brought to numberice of this Court while SLPs were argued that meanwhile appeal pending before the High Court had been disposed of.
This application is disposed of as above.
21/1/C. Aggrieved against the said order dated August 11, 1987 respondent No.1.
However, the Division Bench took into companysideration that the respondent herein has already filed a suit in the Civil Court on May 3, 1989 praying for specific performance of the agreement for lease, the leave to sue the Joint Receivers was necessary, therefore, after hearing the parties observed that the dismissal of the application of the Respondent No.
1 before the Division Bench on 31ST March, 1989 seeking leave to sue joint receivers and reiterating all facts as mentioned in their application dated May 12, 1987 which was disposed of on 11th August, 1987.
It was number the direction of the Court that the appellant shall enter into lease agreement.
21/1/C is companycerned, the Court found that since the request of the applicant respondent therein was rejected by the Division Bench on 11th August, 1987 and against that Order the applicant had already approached the Apex Court and the same has number been disposed of, the Court declined to interfere and rejected the application .
Joint receivers were also permitted by the Court on 15.1.1987 to take appropriate legal action against applicant.
1 was guilty of illegal companystruction.
41 of 1989 before learned District Judge, Alipore on May 3, 1989 for specific performance of the agreement arrived at on May 5, 1986 in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court.
The relevant portion reads as under Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the present case, even though the Courts rejected the application for proper direction upon the Administrator Pendente lite cum Receivers dated 12.5.1997 by its order dated 11.8.1987 we do number find any legal impediment to our granting to the applicant leave to sue the Joint Receivers cum Administrator Pendente lite in respect of premises No.
It was held that petitioner had number companye with clean hands as applicant had raised illegal companystruction in premises No.
1 went to America and she divorced her husband who is managing the School.
The respondent No.
21/1/C or execution of lease for both premises looking to her companyduct as the joint receivers moved the Division Bench that the respondent No.
During the pendency of this matter, an application was filed for seeking permission to let out both these premises i.e. Nos.21/1/C and 21/1/D at Gora Chand Road, Calcutta.
On December 4,1989 permission to sue the joint receivers in respect of premises No.21/1/D was granted by the High Court.
21/1/C because of companyduct of Respondent No.
1 for raising illegal companystruction companytrary to the terms and companyditions of the letter of offer.
As against this learned companynsel for the respondent No.1 pointed out that as per order dated May 5, 1986 the appellant was under obligation to execute the lease deed for both the premises.
21/1/C. Therefore, the prayer of Respondent No.
It was also pointed out that the property remained custodia legis till the Court released both the executrix as joint receivers, they companytinue to hold the property in trust on behalf of Court.
Pending First appeal, the High Court appointed Smt.
The Division Bench after hearing both the parties at length observed that there is an allegation by the Joint Receivers for illegal companystruction in premises No.
Respondent No.1 filed T.S.No.
The respondent number 1 made certain companystruction therein and, therefore, joint receivers moved the High Court for appropriate action in the matter, the respondent No.
1 for illegal companystruction by Order dated 15.1.1987.
An application was moved by Respondent No.1 before the High Court on 12.5.1987 for direction to the joint receivers to deliver possession of the premises No.21/1/C, Gora Chand Road and to execute the lease deed in respect of both the premises.
21/1/D and a suit was filed.
Both the sisters moved an application for grant of probate but the brothers of the appellant companytested the probate.
She bequeathed the property in favour of her two daughters, Subhadra Rani Pal Choudhary the appellant herein and Jyotsnamayee Pal Choudhary since deceased.
Hemantabala Roy in favour of these two daughters on April 2, 1971.
1 also moved the High Court for direction, for possession of premises 21/1/C and to execute lease deed for premises 21/1/D and 21/1/C. That matter was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court on 11th August, 1987 and in that the Division Bench passed a detailed order number to offer the possession of the premises bearing No.
Therefore, Original Suit No.5 of 1975 was registered.
Therefore, the order dated May 5, 1986 is number capable of being enforced as the order of the High Court.
1 herein in First Appeal No.469 of 1980 disposed of , the Special Leave Petition had been filed by the appellant.
Then again another application dated 31.3.1989 was moved before the High Court to sue the joint receivers for specific performance of the agreement for granting lease of both the premises.
1 in the Court of 3rd Munsif, Sealdah.
The next question is what is the effect of two orders passed by the High Court.
Jyotsnamoyee Pal Chowdhary and Smt.
However, this was number pursued further by the appellant and it came to be dismissed for default.
However, probate was granted in favour of the daughters.
The said properties initially belonged to one Smt.
The will was executed by Smt.
Subhadra Rani Pal Chowdhary as administrators cum joint receivers pendente lite by order dated 27th April 1981.
Suit No.
SLPs were rejected ex parte and numbernotice was given to appellants.
The Division Bench of the High Court granted permission on April 30, 1985 to proceed and invite offers.
Once the appeal stood dismissed then the property stood vested with the sisters.
But numberorder was passed in respect of premises No.21/1/C. Aggrieved against this order the respondent No.1 filed L.P. C No.7489 of 1990 before this Court.
One of the scheduled properties i.e. Premises No.
without any numberice to appellant herein .
21/1/D is companycerned, the Court has already granted permission to the applicant respondent No.
1 herein to prosecute its suit filed before the Court for execution of the lease deed of the aforesaid premises, but declined to grant any relief for the premises No.
1,20,000/ as security for execution of the lease deed in respect of premises No.
Aggrieved against this impugned order dated 26th November, 1997 passed by the High Court on application moved by Respondent No.
1 for Specific performance of order to execute the lease for premises No.
Thereafter, the brothers of the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court being First Appeal No.469 of 1980.
The said will was registered on April 12, 1971.
1 being the highest bidder her bid was accepted and Court by order dated May 5,1986 permitted joint receivers to lease out premises in favour of the respondent No.1.
Now, in the light of these two orders passed by the Division Bench, it clearly shows that so far as the request of the applicant to execute the lease deed with regard to Premises No.
were dismissed.
Aggrieved against this order, another Special Leave Petition was also filed.
1 herein on 16th June, 1986 and they are in possession since then.
Learned companynsel for the opposite parties, appellants also agrees to this.
21/1/D for a suit pending between the parties.
Hemantabala Roy, the mother of the appellant.
63 of 1987 was filed for declaration and injunction against the Respondent No.
The possession of the premises No.21/1/D , Gora Chand Road, Calcutta was given to respondent No.1 on June 16, 1986 in terms of the offer made by respondent No.1.
Both were joint executrix under the will.
Thereafter another application was moved by the respondent No.
1 herein on 11th August, 1987 would number pose any impediment to grant leave to sue the Joint Receiver cum Administrators in respect of Premises No.
It was alleged that the respondent No.1 also paid a sum of Rs.10,000/ towards income tax in respect of premises No.21/1/C. But numberpossession of the premises No.21/1/C was given to respondent No.1 number any lease deed was executed in respect of premises No.21/1/D. However, a draft lease deed was sent to the joint receivers but it was number executed on the ground that the respondent No.1 had made illegal companystruction in the premises No.21/1/D in violation of the clause 6 of the letter of offer.
Meanwhile, the First Appeal filed in a probate proceeding by the brothers of the appellant was disposed off by the High Court by way of companypromise between the parties on October 3, 1988.
The High Court in view of the observations made by this Court allowed the application and directed as aforesaid.
It was also submitted that by order dated August 11, 1987 the High Court had overruled the companytention of the respondent No.1 for enforcement of the order dated May 5, 1986 of the High Court to execute the lease deed for both premises.
21/1/D was given by the Joint Receivers to the respondent and possession thereof was handed over to them on 16th June, 1986.
Both the Special Leave Petitions came up before this Court and they were dismissed by order dated January 2, 1995.
It was further directed that the respondent No.1 was to pay the arrear of occupation charges after adjustment of the amounts already paid by him with regard to the companycerned properties and excluding the period of number possession of the premises No.21/1/C in terms of the letter of offer dated November 12, 1985 within four weeks to the receiver and the trial companyrt may issue necessary directions to the receiver with regard to disbursement of the said amount.
K. MATHUR, J. This appeal is directed against an order passed by learned Division Bench of Calcutta High Court dated November 26,1997 in First Appeal No.469 of 1980 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the application of the Respondent No.1 and directed the appellant to execute the lease deed with regard to premises Nos.21/1/C and 21/1/D, Gora Chand Road, Calcutta 700 014 in terms of the order dated May 5, 1986 within a period of six weeks from the date of order i.e. November 26,1997 for a period of 21 years companymencing from the date of grant of relevant permission by the Court, in default, it would be open to the respondent No.1 to apply before the trial companyrt for execution of the lease.
