D/L.38.

January 27, 2026.

.

MNS FA No. 362 of 2025 +

CAN 1 of 2025 Rajesh Bharti Vs.

Rajesh Goyal and another Mr. Bhudeb Chatterjee, Mr. Sailesh Mishra, Mr. Prosenjit Das, Mr. Tulsi Nath Jha … for the appellant. Mr. Shounak Ghosh, Ms. Shreyashi Maity …for the respondents.

Re : CAN 1 of 2025 (stay of execution case)

1. The present application is one for stay of an execution case levied pursuant to the impugned decree of eviction.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the suit premise is situated in the interior portion of a locality, somewhat away from the main thoroughfare.

3. It is further submitted that in view of the area of the suit premises being roughly 1200 square feet, the occupation charges ought to be nominal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the occupation charges, keeping in view the locality of the suit premises, should at least be Rs.70,000/- per month.

5. Although learned counsel for the respondents seeks to rely on a purported Valuer’s report at the time of hearing, we do not permit the respondents to do so, since despite having ample opportunity to file affidavit-in- opposition and after having already filed the affidavit-in- opposition, and the same being controverted by an affidavit-in-reply and the pleadings being complete in respect of the stay application, at the time of hearing of the application, there is no further scope for permitting any further documents to be brought on record. In any event, such document is not supported by any affidavit and, thus, could not be looked into at this stage.

6. Thus proceeding on the basis of the allegations and averments made in the stay application, its opposition and the reply thereto, we find that mere bald allegations have been made by both the parties on the strength of oath versus oath, without producing any corroborative material to bring on record contemporaneous market rent in the vicinity of the suit premises, situated at Charu Chandra Avenue in Kolkata.

7. As such, there is no option left before the Court but to resort to reasonable guesswork to arrive at the quantum of occupation charges commensurate with the area and locality of the premises.

8. We take into consideration the fact that the appellant is running a detective agency, which is a commercial enterprise, from the suit premises, but that the area of the suit premises is only 1200 square feet, and also that initially the rent was Rs.10,000/- for the said premises, as determined by the parties in the year 2014, and accordingly hold that the appropriate occupation charges would be Rs.30,000/- per month.

9. Hence, CAN 1 of 21025 is allowed without costs, thereby making the interim order of stay of all further proceedings in the execution case filed in connection with the impugned eviction decree, granted earlier, absolute till disposal of the appeal, subject to the appellant paying occupation charges at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month to the respondents at the latter’s bank account, the particulars of which shall be furnished by the learned Advocate-on-record for the respondents by January 30, 2026, to the learned Advocate-on-record for the appellant. 10. The first of such current occupation charges shall be paid at the rate of Rs.30,000/- for the month of February, 2026 by February 15, 2026 and thereafter, by the fifteenth day of each current month for each of the succeeding months during the pendency of the appeal.

11. The arrears of occupation charges, calculated from the month of the impugned decree till January, 2026, shall be paid by three equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be paid also by February 15, 2026 and the balance two installments by the fifteenth day of each succeeding month.

12. It is made clear that such payments shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the appeal and shall be subject to the final outcome of the appeal.

13. In default of any of the above payments, either curr