Anisur Rahaman vs Golab Murshed And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3529 Cal

AD. 77.
July 1, 2021.
 MNS.

                                   C. O. No. 1214 of 2021
                                  (Via video conference)

                                     Anisur Rahaman
                                            Vs.
                                 Golab Murshed and others


                       Mr. Partha Pratim Roy,
                       Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee

                                     ... for the petitioner.

                       The petitioner has made out an arguable

                prima facie case as to the appellate court below

                having acted without jurisdiction in disposing of

                the application for stay filed at the instance of the

                petitioner on the very first day upon imposing

                exorbitant occupation charges as condition for

                such stay, without taking into consideration the

                actual area occupied by the petitioner and/or the

                probable income which could be fetched from

                such property.

                       It appears ex facie that no appropriate

                reason was assigned for arriving at the quantum

                of occupation charges.

                       In the absence of any objection on behalf

                of the respondents/opposite parties disclosing the

factors necessary for adjudicating occupation

charges, the impugned order was prima facie

vitiated due to absence of any reason as regards

the quantum of occupation charges.

Accordingly, the petitioner shall serve

copies of the revisional application on the

plaintiffs-opposite party nos. 1 to 3 intimating that

the matter shall be enlisted next for hearing on

July 22, 2021, when the petitioner shall file an

affidavit-of-service.

Service on the proforma opposite party

nos. 4 to 7 is dispensed with for the present.

Till disposal of the present revisional

application, there will be an order of stay of

operation of only the portion of the impugned

order whereby occupation charges at the rate of

Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only per

month were directed to be paid by the petitioner,

subject to the condition that the petitioner goes on

paying/depositing Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one

thousand) only per month in the trial court and/or

to the plaintiffs-opposite party nos. 1 to 3.

The first of such instalment shall be paid

within July 15, 2021 and thereafter the petitioner

shall go on paying the same amount by the 15th

day of every month.

It is made clear that such payment will be

merely on an ad hoc basis and shall not prejudice

the rights and contentions of the parties at the

time of final hearing of the revisional application

and/or in the courts below.

In case of default of payment of any of the

instalments of the amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees

one thousand) only as directed by this Court, this

order of stay shall stand automatically vacated

without further reference to this Court.

It is further clarified that in the event of

payment of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand)

only per month, the stay of operation of the

judgment and decree impugned in Title Appeal

No. 9 of 2020 shall continue, subject to the

outcome of the present revisional application.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)