Calcutta High Court: While deciding an appeal filed against the order of West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal directing the State to take control of the land after nullifying a decree for eviction against the private respondent as the same is vested with the State, a division bench comprising of Debangsu Basak* and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, JJ., set aside the Tribunal’s order, emphasizing that the issue of vesting had been decided in previous execution proceedings under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), and the Tribunal should not have reopened it.
The Court directed the executing court to comply with the Supreme Court’s order to expedite the execution proceedings within 6 months.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the petitioner challenged an order dated 02-05-2014, issued by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal declaring the decree passed by Civil Judge, Howrah which allowed the petitioner’s eviction suit, as a nullity and directed the State to take control of the land.
Moot Point
-
Whether the Tribunal’s order declaring the decree for eviction as null and void due to alleged land vesting with the State valid?
-
Whether the petitioner suppress material facts in obtaining the decree?
-
Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide on the issue of vesting when a challenge to the order of vesting is pending before the High Court?
Petitioner’s Contentions
The petitioner contended that the private respondent, after failing in execution proceedings, approached the Tribunal with mala fide intentions. The petitioner asserted their right as the landlord to execute the decree and cited legal precedents, Ganesh Trading Co. (P) Ltd., In re, 1984 SCC OnLine Cal 128, to support their claim.
While referring to Calcutta Swimming Club v. Lalit Singh, 2009 SCC OnLine Cal 445, the petitioner contended that the issue of land vesting with the State was irrelevant to the suit for eviction, and the private respondent had no cause of action to approach the Tribunal.
The petitioner emphasised that suppression must pertain to a relevant fact. The petitioner contended that the issue of nullity had already been addressed under Section 47 of the CPC and therefore, the Tribunal’s order should be set aside.
Respondent’s Contentions
The private respondent contended that the petitioner was aware of the order of land vesting by the State Government during the eviction suit. It was claimed that the petitioner had suppressed this fact, leading to the Tribunal’s decision that the eviction decree was null and void.
While referring to L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, the private respondent asserted that since the land had vested with the State in 2000, the eviction decree could not be executed.
State’s Contentions
The State contended that the land in question had indeed vested under the Land Reforms Act, 1955, and provided evidence in the form of a notice dated 30-10-2000, issued by the State regarding the vesting.
Court’s Decision
The Court observed that the petitioner had filed a suit for eviction in 1982, and the order of vesting was issued in 1994, therefore, the petitioner could not have included information about the vesting order in the lawsuit.
The Court observed that the central issue in the suit for eviction was the landlord-tenant relationship, which had not been contested by the private respondent. The Court referred S.J.S Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (2004) 7 SCC 166, and observed that suppression of a material fact must be relevant to the case’s merits and in the present case, the issue of land ownership did not affect the landlord-tenant relationship.
The Court cited Ganesh Trading Co. (P) Ltd. (Supra) to support the idea that the claim of rent against a lessee with a decree for eviction but not yet evicted remained valid until the decree was satisfied. While referring to Calcutta Swimming Club (Supra), the Court mentioned stressed that a right to sue must accrue in favor of the plaintiff, and in the present case, the private respondent had no right to approach the Tribunal. The Court referred to L. Chandra Kumar (Supra) and asserted that Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions were questioned, except those challenging their parent statute.
The Court held that the issue of nullity of eviction decree based on the land in question as vested to the State had been settled in execution proceedings under Section 47 of the CPC before the private respondent approached the Tribunal.
The Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed the executing court to comply with the Supreme Court’s order dated 12-08-2013, regarding the execution of the eviction decree as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 6 months.
The Court allowed the petition, and no costs were awarded.
Additional Ruling
The Court refused the prayer for a stay citing the existence of an eviction decree, a Supreme Court order for expeditious execution, and the lack of grounds for a stay.
[Calcutta Pinjrapole Society v. R.S.I. (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2813, order dated 14-09-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Debangsu Basak
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh, Mr. Kushal Chatterjee, Mr. Sunil Kumar Singhania, Ms. Kalpana Singhania, Ms. Twinkle Kaur, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Subir Sannyal, Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Mr. Mainak Gupta, Mr. Prasun Mukherjee, Counsel for the Private Respondent
Mr. Soumitra Bandhyapadhyay and Ms. Suchana Banerjee, Counsel for the State
