Calcutta High CourtSmt. Ela Dutta & Ors vs The Official Trustee Of West Bengal & Anr on 10 February, 2020Author:Sanjib BanerjeeBench:Sanjib Banerjee,Kausik ChandaOD- 1 & 2\n\n\n\n                        IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n                            Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n                                  ORIGINAL SIDE\n\n\n                                APD No. 277 of 2018\n                                        in\n                                 AOT No. 1 of 2015\n\n                           SMT. ELA DUTTA & ORS.\n                                   Versus\n                THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.\n                                     And\n                              APD No.44 of 2019\n                             GA No. 1957 of 2018\n                                      in\n                              AOT No. 1 of 2015\n\n                        RAJEEV MAHESHAWARI & ORS.\n                                  Versus\n                THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.\n\n\n\n  BEFORE:\n\n  The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEEAND\n  The Hon'ble JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA\n\n  Date : 10th February, 2020.Appearance:Mr. S. N. Mitra, Sr. Adv.Mr. Ram Bihari Prasad, Adv.Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv.Mr. Hirak Kr. Mitra, Sr.   Adv.Mr. Aniruddha Roy,     Adv.\n                                                       Ms. Debjani Chatterjee,    Adv.\n                                                       Mr. Shaunak Sengupta,      Adv.\n\n                                                  Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharya, Adv.2Mr. H. Ginodia, Adv.\n\n                                                          Mr. Indranil Nandi, Adv.The Court : These two matters pertain to a property carrying the address of\n\n46, Park Street but with a nearly 135 ft narrow passage from Park Street that\n\nleads to the property.The entire area of the property, including the area of the approximately\n\n13 ft wide passage, is about 20 cottah. On the main portion of the land, there is a\n\ntwo-storied construction. According to the tenant, the building is in a dilapidated\n\ncondition. There is no doubt that the building is more than 75 years old, but the\n\nfirst floor is occupied by the Maheshwaris, who have renovated the area under\n\ntheir occupation of commercial use. According to the Maheshwaris, the building\n\nmay be nearly 100 years old, if not more.The building and the income therefrom are for the benefit of the Armenian\n\nChurch in the city.      The Official Trustee has always been in control of the\n\nproperty. The building was let out in 1962 under a deed of lease for 21 years,\n\nwhich was later extended by 10 years, in favour of one Mohini Mohan Ghosh. The\n\nsons and daughters of Mohini Mohan Ghosh are the present tenants. For reasons\n\nthat the Official Trustee should be able to indicate, the lease was not extended\n\nafter the subsequent ten-year period and the heirs of the original Ghosh insist\n\nthat they are now monthly tenants at the property paying rent at Rs.2750/- per\n\nmonth and entitled to protection under theWest Bengal Premises Tenancy Act,\n\n1997.The original lease executed in favour of Ghosh permitted the tenant to\n\nsublet the property.     Accordingly, parts of the property were sublet to third\n\nparties, including to a medical diagnostic centre and to the Maheshwaris.3According to the Official Trustee, the constructed area is about 7500 sq. ft,\n\nexcluding an outhouse and some similar construction on the open land.           It\n\nappears that charges are obtained by the heirs of the Ghosh to allow cars being\n\nparked on the property.In or about 1999, the then wardens of the Armenian Church entered into\n\nan agreement with the Maheshwaris for developing the property; but the Church\n\nsays the agreement stands abandoned.What appears to be the present position is that about half of the ground\n\nfloor of the constructed area is under occupation of the heirs of Ghosh and the\n\nremaining half is let out in favour of the diagnostic centre, including an area\n\nearmarked as a doctor's chamber. The Maheshwaris enjoy almost the entirety of\n\nthe first floor. To repeat, such prime property yields Rs.2750/- per month to the\n\nOfficial Trustee, though it should be capable of earning hundreds of times more\n\nthan of such amount.Since the object of the present exercise has to be for the benefit of the\n\nbeneficiary under the trust, the Court must make endeavour to ensure that such\n\nprime property yields a worthy amount to the beneficiary. It may not be possible\n\nthat anything close to the market rate on a monthly basis can be earned from the\n\nproperty unless the old building is brought down and the property is developed. It\n\nwould be best if the parties represented in court, including the Armenian Church,\n\nthe heirs of tenant Ghosh and the Maheshwaris, enter into an agreement for the\n\ndevelopment of the property that may be supervised by the court and completed\n\nunder the aegis of the Official Trustee.    The Official Trustee and the Church\n\nshould ascertain what the possible constructed area would be. As per the Chruch,\n\nconstruction can be undertaken to yield at least 30,000 sq. ft of space.4If the property is developed, the heirs of Ghosh need to be relocated\n\n      temporarily.   Even the Maheswaris have to arrange their affairs to allow the\n\n      existing structure to be brought down and a new building constructed.The property is valuable, but it does not yield any meaningful amount to\n\n      the Church. In terms ofSection 25of the Official Trustees Act, 1913, it ought to\n\n      be the Court's endeavour to ensure that a trust property yields a worthy amount.\n\n      If the property is developed, in such manner as the parties may indicate to the\n\n      Court, it may be the most beneficial to the parties, particularly, to the Armenian\n\n      Church.Let the matter stand over for a fortnight for the parties to engage in\n\n      discussions that should yield a fruitful result. Nothing in this order should be\n\n      deemed to be in pursuance of any previous agreement for development of the\n\n      property. The parties' participation in the negotiations will be completely without\n\n      prejudice to their rights and contentions in the pending appeal.(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.)\n\n\n\n                                                                  (KAUSIK CHANDA, J.)\n\n\n\n\nkc.