Cal HC tells Transport dept to vacate private premises

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has directed the Transportation, Planning and Traffic Engineering Directorate of the West Bengal Transport Department to vacate a portion of premises at 18, Rabindra Sarani in central Kolkata, holding that the state cannot continue occupying private property after the expiry of a lease and after a court has already set aside the requisition of the property.

A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya dismissed an appeal filed by the Directorate challenging an earlier order directing it to hand over possession of part of the building to the owner company, Maharshi Commerce Ltd.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs 50,000 imposed personally on the director of the Transport Directorate, to be paid to the company within a fortnight.

The dispute relates to the first and second floors of the premises at 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata–700001, originally leased to the state government by M/s Hope (India) Ltd. The lease, executed in 1984 with effect from April 1, 1980, was for 16 years and expired on March 31, 1996.

Just before the lease expired, the state requisitioned the premises in March 1996 and granted notional possession to the transport directorate. The requisition was later set aside by the High Court.

Ownership of a 9,062 sq ft portion of the property, including the disputed space, was later vested in Maharshi Commerce Ltd through a court-approved scheme of arrangement. While the State vacated most of the premises after de-requisition, about 4,449 sq ft on the first floor remained under the directorate’s occupation.

The owner company approached the court seeking possession and compensation for illegal occupation.

The Bench held that once the lease expired and the requisition was quashed, the State had no authority to retain the premises and had failed to fully comply with the earlier court direction to vacate. Rejecting the state’s limitation argument, the court said its possession began as a lessee and could not be treated as adverse possession. After the lease ended, the state’s status was only that of a “tenant-at-sufferance”, with no legal right to remain.

The court upheld the direction to vacate the premises and allowed the owner to seek compensation for the period of unlawful occupation through an arbitrator.