IMPORTANT POINT
Tenants must pay occupational charges at market rates post-eviction decree, regardless of previous rental agreements, ensuring landlords are compensated for loss of property use.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. Both the revisional applications arise out of the order dated April, 3, 2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge 9th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No.5 of 2024. The applications were heard together.

2. By the order impugned, the application dated February 5, 2024 filed by the judgment debtors, for stay of the execution of the judgment and decree dated October 9, 2023 passed in Title Suit No. 5 of 2016 was disposed of along with an application dated February 27, 2024 for payment of occupational charges filed by the decree holder. The petitioners in C.O. 1310 of 2024 are the judgment debtors and the petitioner in C.O. 1437 of 2024, is the decree holder.

3. By the order impugned, Execution Case No. 4 of 2024 was stayed till disposal of the appeal, subject to the judgment debtors depositing a sum of Rs.85,000/-per month as occupational charges with effect from the date of the decree, within 10th of each succeeding month. First of such deposit was to be made within April 10, 2024 and the arrear occupational charges from October 2023 till March 2904 was directed to be deposited in the same manner within two months from the date of the order. It was further provided in the order that if the judgement debtors failed to deposit the current occupational charges or the arrear occupational charges, the order would stand automatically vacated. The hearing of the appeal was fixed and the LCR was called for.

4. Mr. Saptansu Basu, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the decree-holder/petitioner in CO 1437 of 2024 submitted that the direction for payment of occupational charges at the rate of Rs.85,000 per month was way below the market rent which the property would fetch. The suit property comprised of an area of 5 cotthas 5 chittaks and 21 sq. ft., inclusive of land and a two storeyed building.

5. According to the plaint case, the plaintiff/decree holder became the owner of the said property by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated April 25, 2007. The suit for eviction and recovery of khas possession was filed against the judgements debtors/defendants after they failed to deliver vacant possession of the premises, upon expiry of one month from the date of service of notice to quit. The suit was filed under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, after expiry of the five years from the death of the original tenant. The plaintiff/decree holder contended that one Ram Singh was the original tenant under the erstwhile owner Ms. Enakshi Ghosh. The tenant died intestate on December 20, 2006. The widow of the original tenant also died in 2009. The opposite parties had lost their right to reside in the tenanted premises and they were liable to be evicted from the property. They were trespassers since December 20, 2012.

6. The judgement debtors/defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement. During the pendency of the suit one Gurmel Singh expired and substitution was effected. The judgment debtors contended that the petitioner was not the owner of the suit property. According to the defence case, the grandfather of the defendants was the original tenant. After the demise of their grandfather, Enakshi Ghosh received rent from the defendants.

7. The suit was decreed and the defendants were directed to quit and vacate the suit premises within 60 days from the date of the judgment and decree. As the premises were not handed over, Title Execution Case No. 4 of was filed before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 3rd Court at Alipore.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated October 9, 2023, the defendants/judgment debtors preferred Title Appeal No.5, 2024 and they also prayed for stay of the execution case. The decree holder filed a written objection to the stay application thereby, controverting the allegations. In the Title Appeal, the decree holder also filed an application for a direction upon the judgment debtors to pay occupational charges. It was the specific