IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE C.O. 3784 of 2024 IA No. CAN 1 of 2025 Shahnaz Haque Vs.

Ansar Ali & ors.

For the petitioners : Mr. Bijoy adhikary Ms. Susmita Adhikary For the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Rahul Karmakar Mr. Santu Nandy Heard on : 01.08.2025 Judgment on : 19.09.2025 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Petitioner herein has challenged the impugned order dated 19th July, 2024 passed by learned Small Causes Court, 4th Bench, Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 196 of 2023, arising out of Ejectment Execution case no. 19 of

2023.

2. By the order impugned learned Court below directed that all further proceedings of Ejectment Execution Case no. 19 of 2023 shall be stayed till disposal of the said Misc. Case being No..196 of 2023 filed under the provision of order XXI CPC on condition that the petitioner shall pay the occupational charges at the rate of 9,000/- per month. w.e.f. the date of the decree.

3. Mr. Bijoy Adhikary learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the premises no. 14C Dedar Box Lane was originally owned by Richard Julias Peterson and his others family members, who subsequently sold an area measuring about 25 Sq.ft. on the ground floor to Sk. Sahanul Haque the proforma Respondent no. 4 by a registered deed of conveyance dated 15.10.1998. Said original owner Richard Julias Peterson and others also transferred the property in favour of Sk. Sahanul Haque proforma respondent no.4 Shahnaz Haque and wife of Sk. Sahanul Haque by registered sale deed dated 27.12.2018.

4. Mr. Adhikari’s further contention is Kolkata Municipal corporation has mutated the said premises in favour of said proforma respondent no.4 and his wife and they are regularly paying taxes. Said Sahanul Haque had transferred 2/3rd of his share in the property by registered deed of gift dated 09.09.2020 in favour of proforma respondent no. 3, Sk. Samiul Haque and Sahanaz Haque. The petitioner is joint owner of 14/C Dedar Box lane since long which is undivided and undemarcated. Petitioner is also collecting rent as owner and also on behalf of respondent no.4 by issuing rent receipt to the tenants.

5. The respondent opposite party no. 1 and 2 and one Sk quasim, since deceased, filed an ejectment suit being no. 113 of 2015 against tenant Bagbul Haque for recovery of possession and mesne profit before 4th Bench, which was decreed ex parte on 22.12.2022. The opposite party /decree holder No. 1& 2 and deceased Sk. quasim filed an application for Execution of decree being aforesaid execution no. 19 of 2023. The opposite party no. 1 and 2 and deceased Sk. Quasim also filed another suit being no. TS 1273 of 2021 before the learned 9th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta for declaration in regard to the acquirement of validity of title of the petitioner and for permanent injunction against the petitioner herein which is pending for adjudication. Petitioner’s contention is that no intimation about such execution proceeding was given to them and the petitioner on 03.10.2023 came to know that behind the back of the petitioner an execution case has been filed. He at once made contact with his lawyer and under his instruction proforma respondent no. 3 and 4 herein filed an application before the Bench on 15.12.2023 under section 151 152 read with order 21 rule 97 98 99 101 103 and 105 of the Code being aforesaid Misc. Case no.

196 2023, in the Ejectment execution case no. 19 of 2023.

6. Petitioners specific case is that petitioner and respondent no. 3 had independent right title interest over the decretal property by virtue of aforesaid deeds and accordingly they filed the aforesaid Misc. case no. 196 of 2023 in the Ejectment Execution case no. 19 of 2023 and as such the petitioner cannot be evicted without due process of law. Moreover opposite parties herein filed a suit being TS. 1273 of 2021 challenging the title of the petitioner which is pending before 9t