Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 953 (CAL)

Anjan Kumar Roy v. Chaitali Roy

2022-07-04

RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR

body2022
JUDGMENT Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. - This is a suit for partition and administration. There are diverse properties both movable and immovable which form the subject matter of the suit. 2. This application pertains to a residential property, being Premises No. 57/2, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata-700019 (the premises). The premises is the shared residence of both the petitioner and the respondents. 3. The petitioner is in occupation of the ground floor of the premises, whereas the respondents occupy and reside on the first floor. The premises has two entrances, i.e. the northern entrance which is the main entrance to the house and is the single point of access to the upper floors, terrace and water tanks, and the southern entrance which is a private door-way leading into the ground floor occupied by the petitioner. The main entrance is also the only point of access to the CESC electricity meters, the petitioner's personal mail box, doorbell and washroom for the petitioner's housekeeping staff. 4. In this application, the petitioner seeks appointment of a Receiver in order to facilitate free ingress and egress of the petitioner to the common areas of the premises by putting new padlocks on the entrances or passages leading to the aforementioned common areas. The conduct of the respondents in preventing the petitioner from having easy, smooth and uninterrupted access to the common areas of the premises except through the private living space of the petitioner is the bone of contention of the parties. 5. It is alleged by the petitioner that, this application has been necessitated due to the fact that, the southern entrance of the premises opens into an open garage used by the petitioner and the private balcony of the petitioner, which in turn leads to the residential area wherein the petitioner resides. Thus, there is no way of accessing the common areas and amenities through the southern entrance, save and except through the private living space of the petitioner. Consequently, all third party outsiders such as CESC representatives, KMC officials etc. can only use the private accommodation area of the petitioner to access such common areas. It is also alleged on behalf of the petitioner that both parties had been using the northern entrance, main door to access the common areas in the house up to October, 2020. Consequently, all third party outsiders such as CESC representatives, KMC officials etc. can only use the private accommodation area of the petitioner to access such common areas. It is also alleged on behalf of the petitioner that both parties had been using the northern entrance, main door to access the common areas in the house up to October, 2020. However, since the filing of this suit, the respondent has locked up the northern entrance with their personal locks. This has resulted in the petitioner being prevented any access to the upper floors of the premises including the letter box, the electric meter and the water tanks except by way of access through the private living space of the petitioner. 6. There is also a prior application being GA/3/2020, wherein Joint Receivers had been appointed in respect of the premises. 7. On behalf of the respondents it in alleged that, the petitioner is able to access the electric meter box, the letter box and other common areas through his own living space. Thus, there is no question of the petitioner being granted the keys through the northern entrance. There is no denial of the fact that the northern entrance also leads to common areas of the premises. There is also no denial of the fact that the common areas including the terraces on the second and third floor are under the lock and key of the respondents. The only contention of the respondents is that, there is no reason for the petitioner to insist on having the keys through the northern side entrance, since the common areas can also be accessed from the southern entrance. The respondents do not controvert the fact that access to the common areas from the southern side is not possible except through the private living room area of the petitioner. 8. Significantly, despite repeated opportunities being granted to the parties to try to amicably resolve the disputes, the parties where unable to arrive at any consensus. 9. In my view, the grievance of the petitioner insofar as the respondents continue to keep the northern gate and main entrance locked thereby denying the petitioner free ingress and access to the upper floors and common areas is concerned is justified. I find that access to such common areas only through the private living areas of the petitioner is not a viable option. I find that access to such common areas only through the private living areas of the petitioner is not a viable option. The nuisance, annoyance and invasion of privacy which the petitioner complains of, is not without basis. In my view, the petitioner ought to be permitted free ingress and egress to the common areas of the premises which includes the common roof, water tanks, underground water reservoir, meter box etc. from the northern entrance. In fact, by letters dated February 4, 2021 and February 26, 2021 the Advocate on behalf of the respondent had agreed to provide a set of keys of the northern entrance to the petitioner. However, this was conditional on the petitioner handing over a duplicate set of keys of the southern entrance of the premises to the petitioner. I find that the stand taken by the respondent in demanding for the duplicate set of keys to the southern entrance is unwarranted. There is nothing to demonstrate that the respondent is facing any similar difficulty or inconvenience in the absence of the duplicate keys to the premises from the southern entrance. Accordingly, the stand of the respondents is unreasonable and rejected. 10. In view of the aforesaid, there shall be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the Notice of Motion. Mr. Prabhakhar Choudhury, a member of the Bar Library Club, is appointed Receiver to implement this order. The Receiver shall be paid remuneration of 2000 gms. The remuneration shall be paid by the petitioner. With the aforesaid directions, GA 4 of 2022 stands disposed of.