TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (1) TMI 320
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ws: (a) A decree be passed declaring that the premises being No. 16, Sudder Street, Calcutta-16 including the outhouse and garages to which the Durgapur Diocese is in possession and/or occupation, belong to the said Diocese of Durgapur to the exclusion of Diocese of Calcutta and the Durgapur Diocese alone has the executive right and title to use an enjoy the same; (b) A decree be passed declaring that until the properties of the Durgapur Diocese are demarcated and/or transferred and/or handed over to the Diocese of Durgapur in terms of the resolution of the CNI Synod from the Calcutta Diocese, the power of attorney executed by the Trustees of the Calcutta Diocese Trust Association in favour of the Durgapur Diocese be restored and the Durgapur Diocese will be legally entitled to collect all rents, issues and profits of the assets belonging to the said Diocese of Durgapur; (c) A decree be passed declaring that the CNI Synod Office bearers have no authority to extend the date of holding the Episcopal Election and in the event of any delay in holding such election the said CNI Synod Office bearers have no right and/or authority to appoint Moderator Commissary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. We may at this juncture point out that these two orders are not material for our purposes. However, what is important is the order dated 15th September, 1988. That order is extracted in full: This application was stand adjourned for one week from date. Affidavit-in-opposition and Affidavit-in-reply to be filed in the meantime. So far as the fixed properties concerned there would be an order of status-quo as of today till the disposal of the application. There would also be an order not to dissolve the committee in the meantime. It is recorded that Mr. Bishop Ghose has already taken over the charge. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order. 4. From the above it is seen that in relation to the properties an order of status quo as of today, that is, 15th September, 1988, had been passed by the court. It is complained that there is a violation of these three orders by the six respondents, Satyabrata Biswas, Rev. Bilash Chandra Das, Salil Biswas, Sushil Sharma, Rt. Rev. Dinesh Chandra Gorai and Rt. Rev. John E. Ghosh. The contempt was for: (1) putting a padlock to the main entrance of the premises on 3.7.1993; (2) disconnectin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... subtenant cannot be decided in this proceeding. It is for the landlord to initiate appropriate proceedings for their ejectment. But at this stage, the question is whether Somani Builders Pvt. Ltd. is in occupation or not. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, we are prima facie satisfied that the company was in occupation of the disputed premises. Even a trespasser can be evicted only by due process of law. 9. Therefore it proceeded to appoint Joint Receivers with a direction to obtain the keys from the Officer-in-Charge Taltala Police Station. They would make an inventory of the rooms stated to have been occupied by Somani Builders Pvt. Ltd. opening the padlock which was fixed by the Special Officer. After making the inventory the Joint Receivers were directed to take possession of the said premises. They were also directed to allow Somani Builders to occupy the said premises for the purpose of carrying on business in the usual course. The occupation charges would be paid by the Somani Builders to the Joint Receivers without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. 10. Under these circumstances the present civil appeal by special leave has come ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in view of the definition of 'status quo' as aforesaid, the Durgapur Diocese was entitled to continue its existing activities as on 20.5.1988 regarding running of its activities including the functioning of the Executive Committee of the Diocesan Council. This Court as a matter of practice does not interfere in the interlocutory orders under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on two decisions: (i) State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Nandagopal, , (ii) State of Maharashtra v. Dadamya, 1971 CriLJ 1274 . 14. Learned Counsel for the respondent-tenant, A.K. Ghosh, would urge that he was the tenant of the premises from 1988 onwards. He had been specifically authorised to create a sub-tenancy by a resolution of Durgapur Diocese dated 11.3.1988 to grant the sub-lease. The order of status quo was against the parties who had been impleaded in the interlocutory application. 15. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned Counsel for Somani Builders would submit that the application for contempt was directed against the respondents therein. Where, therefore, they were directed to maintain the status quo, there was no legal disability on the part of the tenant, A.K. Ghosh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (d) Therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order of dispossession against the respondent No. 2 in such proceedings. NO ORDER PASSED IN SUIT CAN BIND A PERSON, WHO WAS NOT A PARTY THERETO: (a) The tenant Ashok Kumar Ghosh and his sub-tenant Somani Builders Private Limited were not parties to the suit instituted in the High Court of Calcutta. Therefore, none of the orders passed in the said suit was ever or is at all binding on any of them; (b) The tenant was inducted prior to the institution of the suit. The suit was instituted on 29th April, 1988 and prior thereto, the tenant was inducted: (c) On 20th May, 1988 the tenant was authorised to grant sub tenancy; (d) The suit was for a declaration that premises No. 16, Sudder Street, Calcutta including its out-house and garage belongs to the Diocese of Durgapur and Diocese of Durgapur has alone exclusive right, title and interest to use the same: (e) On 20.5.1988, the PARTIES to the suit were directed to maintain status quo in respect of RUNNING of Diocese of Durgapur till further order; (f) On 15.9.1988, the Calcutta High Court passed an order of status quo as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lock. What was the nature of prayer is not discernible anywhere. Even the order of the learned Judge does not make mention about this prayer. It has to be carefully noted that Somani Builders based its claim on the strength of the agreement dated 10th May, 1993, claiming a right of sub-tenancy from A.K. Ghosh. 18. First of all, whether A.K. Ghosh was a tenant is itself in dispute. 19. Secondly, whether A.K. Ghosh had a right to create a sub tenancy is again in dispute. 20. Thirdly, more than above all this, when the right of sub-tenancy was sought to be founded on an agreement dated 10th May, 1993, it should have occurred to the learned Single Judge that such a creation of sub-tenancy was clearly violative of the order of status quo passed as early as 15th of September, 1988. It is extremely unfortunate that the learned Judge had not even cared to bestow thought and entertained an oral application at the instance of a person who had nothing to do till then with the application for contempt. He had not even taken out an application to implead himself as a party. If mere oral mention could be enough to direct a Special Officer to remove the padlock, one has to put aside the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssue and disregardful of the facts. The orders of the learned Single Judge and that of the Division Bench cannot stand even a moment's scrutiny. Therefore, it is idle to contend that no interference is warranted under Article 136. 26. Apart from the fact whether A.K. Ghosh had a legal authority to sub-lease or not at was not open to him to grant a sub-lease in violation of the order. It is no use contending as Mr. Chidambaram, learned Counsel for the respondents does, that there was a bar to such a sub-lease under the terms of the status quo order. It has the effect of violating the preservation of status of the property. This will all the more be so when this was done without the leave of the court to disturb the state of things as they then stood. It would amount to violation of the order. The principle contained in the maxim: 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit' has no application at all to the facts of this case when in violation of status quo order a sub-tenancy has been created. Equally, the contention that even a trespasser cannot be evicted without recourse to law is without merit, because the state of affairs in relation to property as on 15.9.1988 is what the Co....