Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
For The vs Suneel Shiva on 3 March, 2014
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
03.03.2014 C.O. 131 of 2014
Mr. Saptangsu Basu
Mr. Ayan Banerjee
Mr. Wasim Ahmed
Mr.Ahid Jamal
... for the petitioners.
Mr. Buddhadeb Ghosal
... for the opposite parties
Heard Sri Saptangsu Basu for the petitioners. Heard Sri Buddhadeb Ghosal for the opposite parties.
The petitioners are the defendants-tenants in Ejectment Suit No. 1739 of 2001. Aggrieved by the decree passed in the said Ejectment Suit 1739 of 2001 by the learned Judge 2nd Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta the petitioners preferred Title Appeal No.58 of 2013.
In connection with the said Title Appeal No. 58 of 2013, the petitioners, as appellants, filed a petition praying for stay of decree in Ejectment Suit No. 1739 of 2001.
By order No.2 dated 16th September, 2013, the learned Appellate Court was pleased to reject the said application finding the same meritless. The said order has been impugned in this revisional application being C.O.131 of 2014.
On perusal of the said impugned order No. 2 dated 16th September, 2013 passed in Title Appeal No. 58 of 2013 this Court is satisfied that the said order is cryptic and without reasons.
Sri Basu relies upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rayat Shikshan Sanstha vs. Suneel Shiva Gaikwad reported in (2010) 15 SCC 539 in which the settled position of law has been reiterated that a Court must record reasons by taking into consideration all relevant factors having regard to the dispute involved.
This Court, therefore, finds the observation of the learned First Appellate Court rejecting the said application in connection with the Title Appeal No. 58 of 2013 without merit. The said Title Appeal No. 58 of 2013, being the First Appeal against an Ejectment Suit, Mr. Basu's clients are entitled to ventilate their grievances with regard to facts and law before the First Appellate Court without suffering execution of the decree and provided they pay all arrear occupation charges and the current rent regularly.
In such circumstances, let the execution proceedings of the decree in Ejectment Suit No. 1739 of 2001 be stayed till the disposal of the Title Appeal No. 58 of 2013. The order impugned No. 2 dated 16th September, 2013 passed by the learned Chief Judge of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, is set aside. Mr. Basu's clients shall pay all arrear occupation charges and current rent regularly and, in default, the stay will stand vacated.
Having regard to the fact that the ejectment suit is of the year 2001, the learned First Appellate Court is requested to dispose of Title Appeal No. 58 of 2013 preferably within a period of six months from date subject to its calendar.
C.O. 131 of 2014 is accordingly allowed.
BD. (Subrata Talukdar, J.)