GAUTAM DEY Vs. PARESHNATH KAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After having suffered an eviction decree from the Court of first instance the tenant carried the same to the Appellate Court exercising statutory right of appeal. In the said appeal, an application for stay of the execution proceeding was taken out which is disposed of by the impugned order. The Appellate Court frowned upon the conditions for disposal of an application for stay directing the Appellant / Petitioner to pay the occupational charges of Rs. 8,40,000/- per month from the month of April, 2015 till the disposal of appeal.

(2.) The challenge of the impugned order is based upon the reasonability of the quantum of occupational charges determined by the Appellate Court as the same is excessive, harassive, punitive and operates in terrorem. An argument is advanced on fixation of quantum of occupational charges as condition precedent for securing an order of stay of the execution proceeding to be unreasonable and beyond the conceivable limit.

(3.) This Court feels necessary to adumbrate the salient features of facts involved in instant Revisional Application before proceeding to decide the points urged before it. The Plaintiff / Opposite Party being trustees and sebats of several deities who owned the impugned property demised unto and in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant by two registered indenture of lease dated April 30th, 1945 and December 17th, 1945 respectively. By virtue of the first lease dated April 30, 1945 the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner was put in possession in respect of a demarcated Eastern portion of Premises No. 20, Deshpran Sasmal Road, Tollygunj, Kolkata for a period of 45 years commencing from the month of May, 1945. The subsequent lease dated December 17th, 1945 was executed in respect of a demarcated Western portion of the said premises for a period of 44 years and 5 months. The intention of the parties which could be gathered from the aforesaid documents that both the leases were to expire on the same date so that the possession could be recovered in respect of the entire premises. Admittedly, the Petitioner had constructed a cinema hall on the said premises and is running the same. A plea was taken that the Petitioner being a monthly tenant his tenancy is protected under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The Trial Court ultimately decreed the suit negativing the contention of the Defendant that he is a monthly tenant.