Md. Anwar Alam Khan vs Abdul Khalique Nehal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 50 Cal

   24
   SK
Ct. No. 18
06.01.2021

C.O. No. 1606 of 2020 (Via Video Conference)

Md. Anwar Alam Khan Vs.

Abdul Khalique Nehal & Ors.

Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin, Mr. Abbas Imrahim Khan ... For the petitioner.

Mr. Saptanshu Basu, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Mr. Abid Jamal, Mr. Wasim Ahmed ... For the O.P. Nos. 1 to 6.

The opposite party nos. 1 to 6 have assailed the

decree of their eviction from the suit property in Title

Appeal No. 58 of 2013 pending before the learned

Judge, VIth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta.

The appeal Court below by the Order No. 63 dated

June 28, 2018 had fixed occupation charges @ Rs.

33,338/- per month as the condition for staying the

operation of the decree under appeal.

Both the parties assailed the said order in separate

revisional applications.

The said revisional applications were disposed of

by this Court vide order dated January 13, 2020

whereby the rate of the occupation charges was

modified @ Rs. 20,000/- per month.

The appeal Court below by the order impugned

being Order No. 75 dated January 28, 2020 has

allowed an application filed by the judgment-

debtors/appellants, opposite party nos. 1 to 6 herein,

seeking permission to deposit the arrear and current

occupation charges in the appeal Court.

The grievance of the petitioner is that by the order

dated January 13, 2020 passed in the aforementioned

revisional applications the opposite party nos.1 to 6

were never permitted to deposit the occupation

charges in the appeal Court rather they were directed

to pay the said charge to the petitioner.

Mr. Saptanshu Basu, learned senior advocate

appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 to 6

submits that there is no difficulty in paying the

occupation charges to the decree-holders directly

subject to the undertaking being given by them that

they will reimburse the same to his clients in the

event his clients are successful in the appeal.

Mr. Basu, further submits that to make such

payment his clients may be permitted to withdraw the

occupation charges already deposited by them in the

appeal Court.

Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin, learned advocate for the

petitioner responding to the submission of Mr. Basu,

readily agreed to give such undertaking of

reimbursement.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

present case and considering the submissions made

on behalf of the parties, this Court permits the

appellants of the connected title appeal, the opposite

party nos. 1 to 6 herein to withdraw the occupation

charges they have already deposited in the connected

appeal. The appeal Court below is requested to ensure

withdrawal of the said amount at the earliest.

The opposite party nos. 1 to 6 shall henceforth

remit the occupation charges to the bank account of

the decree-holders, particulars whereof have been

furnished by Mr. Quasimuddin to Mr. Ayan Banerjee

learned advocate, junior to Mr. Basu.

Let the matter appear in the Supplementary List

two weeks hence under the heading 'For Orders'.

(Biswajit Basu, J.)