Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Partha Pratim Ghosh @ Partha Ghosh vs Mallika Jana & Ors on 6 August, 2024
Item 06.08. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
No. 2024 CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
08
APPELLATE SIDE
Ct
22
rup C.O. 1284 of 2024
(Assigned)
Partha Pratim Ghosh @ Partha Ghosh
Vs
Mallika Jana & Ors.
Ms. Manali Biswas,
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Debdipto Banerjee,
Mr. Soumen Banerjee.
... for the opposite parties.
1. This revisional application has been filed assailing
the order dated 14 th March, 2024 in connection
with Ejectement Appeal No. 6 of 2023 by the
learned Additional District, Fast Track Court-II
Sealdah, 24 Parganas (South).
2. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted that original suit was filed for eviction on
the ground of reasonable requirement before the
Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1 st Court,
Sealdah in connection with Ejectment Suit No. 8 of
2017 which was decreed against the
defendants/petitioner herein and being aggrieved
by and dissatisfied with said judgment and decree,
the appeal has been preferred before the learned
2
Additional District Judge I, Sealdah.
Subsequently, that appeal was transferred to the
Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast
Track Court-II, Sealdah. One application for stay
was filed on behalf of the petitioner herein and that
was disposed of by the order impugned, holding
inter alia, that the judgment and decree passed by
the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1 st Court,
Sealdah shall remain stayed subject to payment of
occupational charge of Rs.15,000/- per mensem.
3. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted that monthly rent of subject premises
was Ra.100/- and occupational charges has been
assessed excessively and prays for consideration of
the amount only.
4. Learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite
party herein has drawn my attention to the
objection to the stay application before the
Appellate Court stating, inter alia, that the subject
premises/shop room is situated in a very strategic
location i.e one kilometer away from Sealdah and
with all amenities and, therefor, learned Judge
rightly considered the amount as 15,000/- per
mensem towards occupational charge.
5. Learned Judge recorded the reason for assessing
the occupational charge as follows:
"It is found that the suit premises is
3
situated within the jurisdiction of Beliaghata P.S and
consists of 1 road side shop room. It is also found that
the decree for eviction has been passed against the
appellant on the ground of reasonable requirement of
the respondents in respect of the suit property and that
the appellant is nothing but a trespasser in respect of
the suit property. In view of the locational advantage,
the ground on which the decree for eviction has been
passed, long pendency of the dispute, and the tentative
hike in occupation charges over his long period, I am of
the opinion that a sum of Rs.15,000/- per mensem
would be just and proper as occupational charges for
the suit premises."
6. Learned Judge considered the location of the shop
room and hike in occupational charges.
7. Considering all facts and circumstances also
considering the location of the subject
premises/shop room, I am of the humble opinion
that the occupational charges should be reduced
from 15,000/- to 12,000/- per mensem.
8. I do not find any other infirmity in the order
assailed in this revisional application.
9. Defendant/petitioner herein is directed to pay the
occupational charges strictly in compliance with
the direction of the learned Trial Judge.
10. With this observation, the revisional application
stands disposed of.
11. Connected applicatons, if any, also stand
disposed of.
12. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if
applied for, be given to the parties on usual
undertakings.
13. All parties shall act on the server copies of this
order duly downloaded from the official website of
this Court.
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
