Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Its Proprietors Namely; Sri Arup Ray ... vs Sri Samarendra Nath Saha on 29 April, 2025
AD- 16
Ct No.16
29.04.2025
(SSS)
SAT 41 of 2020
With
CAN 1 of 2021
M/s Ganga Jewellers a Proprietorship firm represented by
its proprietors namely; Sri Arup Ray Karmakar and Ors.
Vs.
Sri Samarendra Nath Saha, since deceased,
substituted by Sri Gopal Saha and Anr.
Mr. Ashit Baran Rauth,
Mr. Abhisek Seal,
Mr. Arindam Paul,
Ms. Subhasri Chatterjee
...For the Appellants.
Ms. Sabita Mukherjee Roy Choudhury
...For the Respondents.
1. A copy of the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner which was filed in the trial court is handed over by learned Counsel for the respondents today in court and kept on record.
2. The present second appeal shall be heard on the following substantial questions of law:-
(i) Whether the learned Judge of the first appellate court committed a perversity in not taking into consideration the two rooms available to the plaintiff/landlord in the paternal premises of the original plaintiff no. 1 at 5/2, Nanda Ram Sen Street, despite the Commissioner's report having depicted that the said two rooms are situated on the ground 2 floor of the said property, which is situated within close proximity of the suit premises and might suffice to meet the business requirement of the son of the plaintiff.
(ii) Whether the first appellate court substantially erred in law in not taking the consent of the defendant/appellant under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and/or in not assessing the reduced rent despite having granted partial eviction in respect of a portion of the suit premises.
3. Since the second appeal has been admitted, we are of the opinion that a strong prima facie case for grant of stay has been made out. Accordingly, we grant stay of all further proceedings in Ejectment Execution Case No. 12 of 2021 pending before the Learned Judge, Third Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta till disposal of the present application.
4. The respondents shall file affidavit-in- opposition to the application, disclosing particulars of the ingredients for fixation of occupation charges, if any, within a fortnight from date. Reply, if any, shall be filed within a week thereafter. It is made clear that the question of imposition of occupation charges, and if so, the quantum thereof, as condition for the grant of stay, is kept open for being decided at the final hearing of the present application.
3
5. Liberty to the parties to mention the application for hearing before the appropriate learned Single Judge then having determination as and when the timeline for filing of affidavits is over.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Uday Kumar, J.)