Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

d) According to the petitioner she depended on her brother, the proforma OP2 in this application to contest the said Ejectment Suit. However, the proforma OP2 failed to properly inform the petitioner of the ejectment decree passed in favour of the OP1/landlord. The petitioner came to learn of such decree from third parties.

e) The petitioner thereafter contacted her Ld. Advocate and filed an information slip with regard to the decree. On 26th February, 2008 the petitioner came to know that the said Ejectment Suit No. 1064 of 2002 had been decreed ex parte on 1st March, 2006. The petitioner also came to learn of the fact that the ex parte decree has been put to execution vide Ejectment Execution Case No. 191 of 2006.

Therefore, the Ld. 1st Appellate Court was pleased to direct that the petitioner/appellant shall pay monthly occupation charges to the tune of Rs. 250/- per month from the date of the order, i.e. 23rd March, 2011, in default, the order of stay of Ejectment Execution Case No. 191 of 2006 shall stand vacated. The petitioner/appellant was also directed to pay the arrear occupational charges from the date of the order impugned, i.e. 23rd March, 2011.

The said Misc. Appeal No. 18 of 2011 was finally decided by the ld. 5th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta on 18th January, 2013. Upon an analysis of the submissions and the facts on record the Ld. Appellate Court arrived at the following conclusions:-