Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
98/2011 on 3 August, 2011
Author: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
Bench: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
1
SL.36.
03.08.2011.
bpg.
S.A.T.98 of 2011
Mr. Probal Mukherjee,
Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty.
...for the appellant.
Mr. Shenaz Tariq Meena.
...for the respondents.
This matter is taken up for hearing out of turn on the mentioning of Mr. Probal Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, in view of the urgency pleaded by him.
Re : C.A.N.7171 of 2011.
This is an application for acceptance of the deficit court-fees put in out of time, which is treated as on day's list.
After hearing Mr. Probal Mukherjee, learned advocate, appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Shenaz Tariq Meena, learned advocate appearing for the respondents, and considering the nature of explanation offered in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the memorandum of appeal with full deficit court-fees. The deficit court-fees have been deposited. However, the deposit was made out of time. We accept the delayed deposit.
2The application for acceptance of deficit court-fees put in out of time is, thus, disposed of.
We make no order as to costs.
The tenant gave a letter expressing his intention to vacate. It appears from the letter itself that there were various discussions followed by unlimited reminders by the landlord for vacating the suit premises.
Both the courts below, in the facts and circumstances of this case, found as findings of fact, that the tests of Section 6 (1)(e) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 were satisfied and consequently the decree was passed.
We do not think in construing the said exhibit-5, the learned judges committed any substantial error of law requiring interference by this Court in second appeal.
The appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed under Order XLI, rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
After dismissal of the appeal, Mr. Mukherjee prays for some time for his client to find out an alternative accommodation.
Mr. Meena, learned advocate appearing for the caveator, in his usual fairness, does not oppose such prayer for time.
Therefore, the appellant is permitted to stay in the suit premises till August 31, 2012 subject, however, to filing of an undertaking that he shall quit, vacate and deliver peaceful 3 possession of the suit premises in favour of the landlord or his representatives by August 31, 2012. During his stay in the suit premises, he shall neither cause any damage to the suit premises nor create any third party interest in relation thereto.
Let such undertaking be filed by Wednesday next when the matter shall appear as 'for orders'.
There shall be stay of all further proceeding in Ejectment Execution Case No.34 of 2010 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court at Alipore for a period of one week.
If undertakings, as aforesaid, are filed, the stay shall continue till August 31, 2012. In default of filling such undertakings, the decree shall be executable at once.
We make no order as to costs.
(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.) (Mrinal Kanti Sinha, J.)