Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Karnani Properties Limited vs Rekha Lakhwani & Anr on 28 June, 2019
Author: Biswajit Basu
Bench: Biswajit Basu
1 402,ML,Ct.21. 28.06.2019
AJ.
C.O. 4308 of 2018 Karnani Properties Limited
-Vs-
Rekha Lakhwani & Anr.
Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee.
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Dilip Kumar Mukherjee, Mr. Pradip Kumar Nag.
.....for the opposite party no.1.
The revisional application under Article 227 of a decree-holder in a suit for eviction and is directed against Order No. 36 dated September 25, 2018 passed by the learned Judge, IVth Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 41 of 2016.
The decree-holder/petitioner obtained an ex parte decree of ejectment against one Bhagwant Singh in Ejectment Suit No. 6783 of 2014.
The petitioner put the said decree into execution which gives rise to Ejectment Execution Case No. 127 of 2015.
The opposite party no. 1 in the said execution case filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure registered as Misc. Case No. 41 of 2016. The opposite party no. 1 in the said Misc. Case prayed for stay of the Ejectment Execution Case No. 127 of 2015. The said prayer of the opposite party no. 1 was allowed by the learned Trial 2 Judge vide order dated September 06, 2017 subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- per month as occupation charges.
The opposite party no. 1 subsequently filed an application for modification of the said order on the ground that the High Court in C.S. No. 8 of 2016 passed an order on January 18, 2016 appointing a receiver to collect the rents from the tenants of the Karnani Mansion where the suit flat is situated.
The learned Trial Judge on consideration of the said order of the High Court recalled the said order dated September 06, 2017.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that that the opposite party no.1, in fact, was paying a sum of Rs.245/- per month to the learned Receiver appointed in C.S. No. 8 of 2016 vide Order dated January 18, 2016.
Mr. Dilip Kumar Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 does not dispute such submission of Mr. Mukherjee.
The tenant i.e. opposite party no. 1 when is already paying a sum of Rs.245.04 to the learned Receiver appointed by the High Court, she is entitled to adjust the said amount against the amount of occupation charges fixed by the order dated September 06. 2017.
The opposite party no. 1 therefore is required to pay a sum of Rs. 4,750/- per month on account of occupation charges in respect of the suit property instead of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The other conditions of the said order dated September 06, 2017 shall remain unaltered. 3
With the above observations, the revisional application being C.O. 4308 of 2018 is disposed of.
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.)