1. The present challenge has been preferred by judgment-debtors in an eviction suit.

2. Subsequent to passing of the decree, the decree-holder/opposite party levied execution and filed an application under in connection therewith.

3. On the other hand, the judgment-debtors/petitioners took out an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the ex pate decree.

4. During pendency of the said proceedings, the judgment-debtors/petitioners prayed for stay of the execution proceeding.

5. By the impugned order, the executing court granted such stay upon condition for the petitioners to deposit before the Registrar, City Civil Court at Calcutta, an amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-three lakh) only, as security deposit.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the executing court did not take into account, while assessing such occupation charges, a letter dated June 19, 2013 issued by the decree-holder/opposite party to the petitioners agreeing to certain mutual terms as to rent and other expenses payable for enjoyment of the lease.

7. It is further submitted that the executing court proceeded only on the statement of dues submitted by the decree-holder while coming to the quantum of occupation charges.

8. The petitioners submit that a composite amount of around Rs. 22,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-two lakh) only is due from the petitioners to the opposite party in connection with Miscellaneous Case No. 2238 of 2016, which is the subject matter of the present revision, and Miscellaneous Case No. 1594 of 2016, together.

9. Learned counsel for the decree-holder/opposite party, while resisting such arguments, submits that the decree-holder denied the allegation of the petitioners as to any settlement having been arrived at.

10. It is further submitted that in view of the petitioners, having not complied with the purported agreement by payment of the amounts specified therein, gave a go-bye to the purported agreement in any event. As such, it is submitted by the opposite party that the executing court was justified in directing occupation charges to be paid commensurate with the outstanding dues.

11. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party that, in fact, the executing court was on the lenient side by not directing arrears of occupation charges to be paid. A perusal of the materials on record shows that the decree-holder virtually admitted the issuance of the letter dated June 19, 2013 from the end of the decree-holder/opposite party to the petitioners. But it is the plinth of the submission of the opposite party that the said agreement was never acted upon by the parties.

12. A perusal of the said agreement shows that there was no stipulation as to the time limit within which the payments were to commence in terms of the said agreement. As such, it is premature to decide as to whether the agreement was acted upon or not, particularly since the said agreement was the basis of the application filed by the petitioners under Order IX Rule 13 of the of the Code.

13. However, it is apparent from the impugned order that the executing court did not take into consideration such amount, as agreed between the parties allegedly. The executing court proceeded on the premise of the statement of the decree-holder alone in quantifying the occupation charges, which was not a valid exercise of jurisdiction.

14. Accordingly, C.O. No. 2998 of 2018 is disposed of by setting aside the portion of the impugned order, whereby a payment of Rs. 23,00,000/- (Rupees twenty three lakh) as occupation charges was directed by the executing court.

15. There will now be an unconditional stay of the connected execution case for a period of four weeks from this date. The executing court will reassess the occupation charges upon hearing both sides afresh, considering all the materials in that regard produced by both sides, as indicated above, within three weeks from date.

16. It is made clear that the said time-fra