w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The Matter of: Ghazanfar Ali Khan & Others v/s Amjadia Food Products (P) Ltd. & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- B. P. FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15311MP1994PTC032994

Company & Directors' Information:- S P P FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15412DL2004PTC128666

Company & Directors' Information:- J S FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15314OR1991PTC002964

Company & Directors' Information:- H R B FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15146WB1988PTC045281

Company & Directors' Information:- V D FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15400DL2012PTC231717

Company & Directors' Information:- P R FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC030483

Company & Directors' Information:- S S FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15310MH2003PTC142530

Company & Directors' Information:- B K FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15312OR1996PTC004541

Company & Directors' Information:- O H P FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52205DL1999PTC100269

Company & Directors' Information:- K V FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15122DL2007PTC162739

Company & Directors' Information:- K. C. FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15431JK1982PTC000554

Company & Directors' Information:- K I C FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15316DL1979PTC009757

Company & Directors' Information:- R B FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15313DL2010PTC202753

Company & Directors' Information:- R K B FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15490KL2013PTC033500

Company & Directors' Information:- S K G FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15419UP1991PTC013771

Company & Directors' Information:- B H FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15134DL1997PTC084273

Company & Directors' Information:- N S FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15412WB1992PTC055591

Company & Directors' Information:- H N FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15146UP1990PTC011540

Company & Directors' Information:- V K FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15412UP1988PTC010023

Company & Directors' Information:- B M FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15419WB1993PTC060386

Company & Directors' Information:- I K FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15412WB1991PTC051852

Company & Directors' Information:- S S V FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15499AP1982PTC003547

Company & Directors' Information:- S Q P FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15100MH2003PTC139217

Company & Directors' Information:- F S FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15311MH2000PTC126031

Company & Directors' Information:- Z K FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15400MH2010PTC209818

Company & Directors' Information:- M B S FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01112WB2003PTC096375

Company & Directors' Information:- N D FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15131DL2002PTC115754

Company & Directors' Information:- C K M FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909KL1998PTC012358

Company & Directors' Information:- G S C FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15316WB1985PTC038398

Company & Directors' Information:- A K G FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Under Liquidation] CIN = U15412WB1990PTC049789

Company & Directors' Information:- J M D FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15419DL1998PTC097578

Company & Directors' Information:- L K FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15200TG2016PTC103411

Company & Directors' Information:- FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15431JK1966PTC000304

Company & Directors' Information:- R R FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15490PN2015PTC154753

Company & Directors' Information:- A N FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15400TG2013PTC091969

Company & Directors' Information:- R V S K FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15490DL2012PTC245851

Company & Directors' Information:- K G Y FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15400KA1984PTC005909

Company & Directors' Information:- FOOD PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U15311HR1994PTC032356

Company & Directors' Information:- M K FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15209DL1979PTC009924

    C.O. No. 2368 of 2012 (Appellate Side)

    Decided On, 26 November 2013

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL

    For the Petitioners: Sagar Bandyopadhyay, S. Datta, Pinaki Brata Ghosh, Advocates. For the Opposite Parties: Malay Kumar Ghosh, Mukti Charan Ghosh, Shamim Aktar, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Asim Kumar Mondal, J.

The petitioners No. 1 to 9 are the defendants in a suit being No. 1508 of 2011 pending before learned Judge, 13th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta.

The opposite party No. 1 filed the suit against the defendants/petitioners No. 1 to 9 and also against the opposite parties No. 3 to 10 praying for declaration that the occupation of the defendants are illegal, unlawful and they are the trespassers. Further that the plaintiff also prayed for recovery of possession by way of delivery of khas possession of the suit premises No. 36, A.P.C. road, Kolkata. The case of the plaintiff/Opposite Party No. 1 is that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company. It has inducted M/s. Fahmco, a partnership firm as tenant in the suit premises by an agreement with certain terms and conditions. M/s. Fahmco had three partners, Abdul Hassan, Mashiur Rahaman and Athar Ali Khan. The said partners died in the year 1984 and 1998. Achchi Begam, wife of late Athar Ali Khan was never a partner of M/s. Fahmco being the lessee of the plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 that an inspection made by the representatives of the Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta, it is revealed that M/s. Fahmco has no existence practically in the said premises of the company at present and there is a hotel and other businesses run by the petitioners and they are collecting the rents of some shop rooms situated in the said premises. It is the further case of the petitioner/plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 that Achchi Begam, deceased mother of the petitioners/defendants No. 1 to 9 died on May 12th, 2008 and the said defendants including their mother Achchi Begam never carried on any business from the said premises. None of the defendants No. 1 to 9 were ordinarily residing with Achchi Begam up to her death in the premises in question. So, the defendants are trespassers in the said premises in the eye of law ad they have also no right, title and interest to hold possession or to carry on business in the suit premises. Hence the suit.

In the said suit the petitioners/defendants No. 1 to 9 appeared and filed one petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for rejection of the plaint on the grounds that in a subsequent suit filed by M/s. Fahmco, this Court passed a decree on February 1st, 1967 declaring it as tenant in the tenanted premises including 36, A.P.C. Road. The plaintiff Company went into liquidation and order of winding up was passed by this Court on July 13th, 1967. The Hon’ble High Court in the said winding up proceeding granted leave to M/s. Fahmco to proceed with the execution of the decree against the plaintiff company. At the relevant time the Official Liquidator of the High Court was deemed to be in possession of the entire assets and properties of the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1. In an application filed by Achhi Begam in the said liquidation proceedings applied for acceptance of rent and the company court accepted the same after enhancing it to Rs. 350/-. Subsequently rent was refixed at Rs. 400/- per month. The defendants No. 1 to 9 made an application before the High Court being C.A. No. 507 of 2008 for substitution of their names in place of Achchi Begam. High Court dispose of the said application with observation that the applicants may assert their rights as being entitled to whatever Achchi Begam had been entitled to in respect of the said property.

The petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the grounds that leasing out of the premises No. 36, A.P.C. Road by the plaintiff company in favour of M/s. Fahmco is undisputed. It is also admitted that the father of present petitioners was a partner of the said firm. Further the tenancy right of the said firm was appreciated by the High Court. It is also admitted that the said partnership firm distributed the assets of the said firm and Athar Ali Khan and others were allotted to the premises No. 36, A.P.C. Road. The rent paid by the father of the petitioners to the Official Liquidator was enhanced by the Hon’ble Court twice. The tenancy of Athar Ali Khan is admitted position. At the time of death of Achchi Begam and also at the time of death of Athar Ali Khan the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was in force and therefore, by operation of law the said Achchi Begam became the tenant in the said premises as well as the petitioners also became the tenant of the said premises.

After contesting hearing by an order no. 10 dated may 30th, 2012 learned Judge, 13th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta was pleased to dismiss the said application under order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal the petitioner/defendants No. 1 to 9 have preferred the present revisional application on the grounds that learned Court below acted illegally with material irregularity in exercising jurisdiction has vested to him under law. Further that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the application and admitted documents in their proper prospective and finally learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that there is no disclosure of cause of action in the plaint.

Mr. Sagar Bandyopadhyay with Mr. S. Datta and Mr. Pinaki Brata Ghosh appears on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Bandyopadhyay submits that there are facts stated in the plaint admitting in favour of the petitioners have not been considered in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that on June 17th, 1977 the Hon’ble Court was pleased to fix the rent of the premises in presence of the Official Liquidator and the said rent was refixed subsequently. Mr. Bandyopadhyay also placed on some observations of the High court in several petitions in the winding up proceedings of the Company and tried to establish that the Court has acknowledged the status of the petitioners as tenant in the suit property.

I have considered the submissions of learned Counsels appeared on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Malay Kumar Ghosh, Mr. Mukti Charan Ghosh and Mr. Shamim Aktar appears on behalf of the opposite parties. I have also perused carefully the certified copy of the order impugned passed by learned Trial Court and the photocopies of the documents like the copy of the plaint, the copy of the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and other documents annexed with the application. It appears to me that the opposite party No. 1/plaintiff in the plaint has averted so many facts and circumstances which are required to be established by way of adducing evidences and documents. The petitioners has also raised some questions challenging the maintainability of the suit on the basis of the some documents as well as facts. The learned Trial Court is to examine as to under what circumstances this High Court observed and passed a decree declaring M/s. Fahmco as tenant in the suit premises. Further learned Trial Court is also required to examine the claim of the petitioners as tenant in the suit premises.

I have got no hesitation to hold that there are claim and counter claim between the parties and there

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

are bundle of facts as averted in the plaint which are required to be examined on trial. So, learned Trial Court did not commit any mistake or failed to exercise its jurisdiction to consider the prayer for rejection of plaint under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In fact, there is no scope to interfere into the order impugned. As a result the revisional application is liable to be set aside. Thus the order impugned being No. 10 dated May 30th, 2012 passed by learned Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1508 of 2011 is remain uninterfered. The revisional application stands dismissed without costs. The written statement if filed within a period of four weeks from the date of order by the petitioners, Learned Trial Court be accepted the same.
O R