AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is directed against an order dated 9 February, 2021 whereby a Learned Single Judge has quashed a notice dated 8 December, 2020
bearing Memo No.406/ME/J/2020 (“the impugned noticeâ€).
The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice whereby the Estate Manager, Murshidabad Estate had sought for rental arrears from
the respondent company since the year 1994.
It is an admitted position that the respondent company continues to enjoy a valuable and prime property situated in the heart of Kolkata. In fact, the
respondent company is inter alia carrying on a well known restaurant from the subject premises for nearly two decades. Admittedly, there has been an
earlier round of litigation by and between the parties and an earlier attempt to claim rental arrears had been quashed in those proceedings.
By the impugned notice the appellants have demanded rental arrears from the respondent company and directed the respondent company to appear
before them. Such proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Murshidabad Estate (Management of Properties) and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1980.
We find that by the impugned notice the appellant had raised a demand for rental arrears aggregating to Rs.72,18,777/- (Seventy Two lacs eighteen
thousand seven hundred seventy seven only). The proceeding has been initiated under the provisions of the aforesaid Act failing which there was a
threat contained in the impugned notice that necessary steps should be taken in accordance with law against the respondent company.
We are prima facie of the view that instead of interfering with the impugned notice at such a nascent and early stage, the respondent company ought
to have been directed to contest the proceedings before the Appropriate Authority and take all points available to them in accordance with law.
At this stage, we are prima facie of the view that no right of the petitioner company has been infringed. There has been no final adjudication till now.
We also prima facie find that no adverse order has been passed which has impacted the respondent company till now and which warrants the
interference of this Court at this stage.
We also find that the respondent company had been continuously and uninterruptedly enjoying a valuable property and paying a pittance for more than
two decades. The respondent company always has a remedy to take all points including the point of limitation before the Appropriate Authority. In
fact, all disputes including the question of quantum ought to have also been adjudicated by the Appropriate Authority.
Accordingly, we are prima facie satisfied that the impugned order be stayed until further orders.
Let this matter appear alongwith the cross appeal filed on behalf of the respondents for hearing before the Appropriate Bench on 16.07.2021.