Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Naseem Ahmed Khan vs Karnani Properties Ltd on 3 October, 2023

Author: I. P. Mukerji

Bench: I. P. Mukerji

                       IA No. GA 3 of 2023
                        APD No. 7 of 2023
                               with
                       CS No. 162 of 2016
               IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                        In appeal from its
             ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                        Naseem Ahmed Khan
                              Versus
                       Karnani Properties Ltd.


Before:
The Hon'ble Justice I. P. MUKERJI
            And
The Hon'ble Justice BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
Date: 3rd October 2023
                                                            Appearance:
                                        Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Sr. Advocate
                                            Mr. Altamash Alim, Advocate
                                          Mr. Dilip Mukherjee, Advocate
                                         Mr. Debapriya Gupta, Advocate
                                                        for the appellant
                                     Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, Advocate
                                       Mr. Biswanath Chatterjee, Advocate
                                         Mr. Neelesh Choudhury, Advocate
                                    Mr. Shaunak Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
                                           Ms. Anuradha Podder, Advocate
                                                       for the respondent

The Court: Our judgment and order dated 1st August 2023 inter alia directing the appellant to pay ad hoc occupation charges at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month was taken by him to the Supreme Court.

On 11th September 2023 the appellant withdrew the Special Leave Petition before that Court. While allowing withdrawal of the petition, the Supreme Court granted him leave to file before this Court an application to determine how much occupation charges he would have to pay pending hearing of the appeal. This liberty was granted by the Court to the appellant on the learned counsel contending before that Court that the tenants in the subject building were paying less rent.

The second paragraph of the order of the Supreme Court is noteworthy. It says that if such application is filed "The High Court may consider the same objectively and pass appropriate orders". 2

Now such application having been made, a duty has been cast upon this court to "objectively" assess the occupation charges pending hearing of the appeal.

To enable us to do so a response from the respondent is also called for.

Let affidavits be exchanged in this application according to the following directions:

Affidavit-in-opposition be filed by 16th October 2023. Affidavit- in-reply may be filed by 20th November 2023. List the appeal and the connected application for hearing on 22nd November 2023, fairly at the top.
In the application taken out by the appellant some evidence of rent or occupation charges being paid by the occupants of the subject building have been annexed.
Mr. Choudhury, learned advocate for the respondent submits that those documents relate to rent or occupation charges paid by the tenants or ex-tenants. The appellant is a rank trespasser. The market rate of rent is over Rs.1,00,000/- per month.
At this interim stage a good guidance to the court is the order dated 28th June 2019 in CO No. 4308 of 2008 (Karnani Properties Ltd. vs. Rekha Lakhwani & Anr.). The case relates to a similar tenanted area in the same premises. In the said order, it was inter alia stated that the learned trial judge in that case on 6th September 2017 had fixed Rs.5,000/- per month as occupation charges. It appears from the narration of facts in the said order dated 28th June 2019 that Rs.5,000/- per month occupation charges was approved by the High Court.
Since the subject part of the property is more or less the same area and the fixation of the occupation charges of Rs.5,000/- per month was made in 2017, as an interim order strictly without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties, we direct that for the time being, instead of Rs. 20,000/- the appellant shall pay 3 Rs.8,000/- per month as occupation charges in terms of our order dated 1st August 2023.
The sum Rs.8,000/- is to be read in all parts of the order dated 1st August 2023. The rest of the order shall remain intact.
Time to make the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- and the arrear occupation charges under the order dated 1st August 2023 is extended till 6th November 2023.
(I. P. MUKERJI, J.) (BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.) R. Bose