Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUBHENDU SAMANTA
P.L. Mullick and Co. – Appellant
Versus
Khaitan Consultations Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.
1. This is an application seeking modification variations and/or recalling or order dated 6th April, 2005 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in CAN 930 of 2005. In connection with SAT 168 of 2005.
2. Respondent of the second appeal is applicant herein.
3. Brief fact of the matter is that present respondent being plaintiff filed a suit for eviction before the trial court being ejectment suit No. 584 of 1995. The said suit was decreed on 13.02.2003, against such decree, the present appellant being the defendant challenged the said judgment and decree before the 1st Appellate Court. The 1st Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Trial court on 12th October 2004. Against the order of 1st appellate court, the instant second appeal has been preferred by the appellant. In connection with the appeal, appellant filed an application being CAN 930 of 2005, praying for stay of further proceeding of execution case initiate by the present respondent. In terms of the prayer of the appellant the division bench of this court vide its order dated 6th April, 2005 disposed of CAN 930 of 2005 with following observations.
4. The suit is fo
Appellate courts have discretion in awarding stay conditions but cannot modify final orders unless new substantial evidence justifies such action; past decisions are binding under the principle of re....
The court established that occupational charges must be reasonable and based on a fair assessment of the property, especially in cases involving ex-parte decrees.
Appellate courts have the authority to set reasonable terms for occupational charges during stays on eviction orders, considering current market values.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary power of the court to determine the quantum of occupational charge based on the nature, location, and value of the property, and ....
Occupants in eviction suits are obligated to pay occupation charges during the pendency of the suit, and courts must provide reasoned orders on such applications.
Tenant cannot claim himself/herself to be tenant qua the premises in question after passing of eviction order and courts after passing of eviction order can always put the tenant of premises to terms....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the jurisdiction to direct payment of admitted rent or usage charges during the pendency of a suit, and the landlord is entitled....
Mesne Profits – A tenant who once entered property in question lawfully, continues in possession after his right to do so stands extinguished, is liable to compensate landlord for such time period af....
The court ruled that conditions for stay of execution cannot include mesne profits payments without proper ascertainment, ensuring rights of both parties are preserved during appeals.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
