JUDGMENT :

SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant/tenant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court 1 Alipore, in Title Appeal No. 233 of 2003 dated 30.06.2006.

2. Factual matrix of the lis is that the plaintiff/landlord filed a Title Suit being T.S. 26 of 1995 seeking eviction of the tenant from a self contained flat consisting of three rooms, one kitchen, one bath-cum-privy and verandah situated in the ground floor of the building being 12-B, Indra Roy Road, PS Bhawanipur, Kolkata-700025.

3. The said title suit has been dismissed by a judgment dated 31.07.2003.

4. In the present appeal an application has been filed being CAN 1 of 2006 (bearing the old No 6410 of 2006) seeking stay of operation of the judgment and decree passed in the title appeal and title execution case no. 12 of 2006. Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed against the said application for stay and affidavit-in-reply has also been filed by the petitioners.

5. Subsequently an application being CAN 2 of 2017 (bearing old No. 7644 of 2017) has been filed on behalf of the landlords seeking occupational charges. In respect of this application also affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply have been filed.

6. Mr. Kallol Basu, Ld. Senior Counsel representing the tenant during his exhaustive submission has stressed upon the fact that the application seeking occupational charges filed by the respondent/landlord has been preferred at a much belated stage. He has stressed upon the fact that the present appeal was initially tendered in the year 2006 being SAT 3305 of 2006 which has been renumbered as SA 148 of 2007. He has further submitted that at the time of filing of the present appeal the application being CAN 1 of 2006 was filed seeking stay of operation of the impugned judgment. He has further submitted that the present appeal has been admitted on 22nd March 2007 and three substantial questions of law have been framed. He has also submitted that on the self same day the application for stay was taken up and stay of all further proceedings of the Title Execution case no. 12/2006 pending in 4th Court of the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Divn.), 4th Court at Alipore was passed till the disposal of the application. He has further stressed upon the point that at the time of passing of an order of stay the Hon’ble Division Bench did not pass any order of occupational charge and there was no cause for implementation of occupational charge as at that relevant point of time there was no application filed by the respondents/landlords seeking occupational charge. He has further submitted that just in the year 2017 after a gap of more than ten years the application seeking occupational charges have been preferred on behalf of the respondents/landlords and further submitted that the present application is time barred and occupational charges cannot be imposed as per the provisions of the Limitation Act. In this context the learned counsel has placed Section 3 (2) (b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and also Article 137 of the said Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble three judges bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between the Kerala State Electrcity Board, Trivandrum Vs. T.P. Kunhali Umma,  (1976) 4 SCC 634. Another judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors. and Sumedh Singh Saini Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors.  (2011) 14 SCC 770 has also been relied. Another judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between Sameer Kapoor and Anr. Vs. State through Sub-Division Magistrate South, New Delhi and Ors.  (2020) 12 SCC 480 has also been placed. He has also relied upon a judgment of a single bench of this court in the case between M/s. P.L. Mullick & Co. Vs. Khaitan Consultation Ltd. and Ors. He has