Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Snigdha Sarkar vs Ramesh Kumar Somani on 13 February, 2020
Author: Biswajit Basu
Bench: Biswajit Basu
1 54,ML,Ct.18.
13.02.2020.
AJ.
C.O. 4234 of 2019 Snigdha Sarkar
-Vs-
Ramesh Kumar Somani Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Mr. Shaunak Ghosh, Mr. Sourav Mandal, Mr. Saptarshi Kumar Mal.
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Manas Kumar Ghosh, Ms. Susmita Dey (Basu).
....for the opposite party.
The decree-holder of a decree of ejectment is the petitioner of the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against Order No.4 dated September 02, 2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Alipore, District 24-Parganas (South) in Title Appeal No. 103 of 2019.
The Appeal Court below by the order impugned has directed the judgment-debtor/opposite party to pay occupation charges at the rate of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) per month as the condition for stay of the further proceeding of the execution case levied to execute the decree under challenge in the appeal.
2Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that his client in his written objection to the application for stay, his client relying on a valuation report by a registered valuer Talbot & Co. has specifically asserted that the current rental value of the suit property cannot be less than Rs.30,000/-(Thirty Thousand) per month but the learned Trial Judge without considering the said report has assessed the occupation charge of the suit property at Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) per month.
Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the judgment- debtor/opposite party vehemently opposes the said submission of Mr. Chatterjee and submits that his client has disputed the correctness of the said valuation report as such the learned Trial Judge has rightly did not consider the said report in fixing the occupation charges.
Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and on going through the materials-on-record it appears that the opposite party although has disputed the correctness of the said valuation report but has not filed any formal exception to it.
The suit property is a self-contained flat at the front portion of the 1st floor of the premises no.304, Jodhpur Park, Police Station - Lake, Kolkata - 68, consisting of two bed rooms, one drawing cum dining room, two bath cum privies, one kitchen and verandah.
Jodhpur Park is one of the posh areas of the city of Kolkata. The assessment of the market rental value of the suit property in the said valuation 3 report at Rs.30,900/- (Thirty Thousand Nine Hundred) is not quite absurd rather it is in lesser side.
The opposite party since is disputing the correctness the said valuation report, giving some credit to such dispute, this Court fixes the occupation charge of the suit property at the rate of Rs.25,000/-(Twenty Five Thousand) per month.
The said amount of occupation charges is payable from the date of the decree.
The opposite party is required to deposit the current occupation charges within fifteenth of each succeeding month for which it false due.
The arrear occupation charges is required to be deposited by two equal monthly instalments along with current occupational charges.
The first of such instalments is to be deposited by the end of February 2020.
All of the aforesaid deposits are required to be made in the execution case levied to execute the decree under challenge in the Title Appeal No. 103 of 2019 being Title Execution Case No. 39 of 2019 pending before the 9th Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore District. 24 Parganas (South).
There shall be unconditional stay of the Title Execution Case No. 39 of 2019 till the end of February 2020 and in the event the deposits are made in the manner and within time as directed above such stay shall continue till the disposal of the connected Title Appeal No. 103 of 2019. 4
In default of complying any of the aforementioned directions in depositing the occupation charges the stay granted by this order shall stand vacated automatically and the decree shall be executable at once.
C.O. 4234 of 2019 is disposed of with the above terms. No order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Biswajit Basu, J.)