Runu Dutta & Ors. vs Swapan Kumar Dey & Ors.

This second appeal, at the instance of certain defendants in an eviction suit, challenges the appellate judgment and decree dated March 25, 2013

whereby the suit instituted by the respondents 1 and 2 has been decreed, inter alia, on the ground of default committed by the defendant-appellant no.1

in payment of rent.

We have heard Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants and perused the appellate judgment. It is found that rent had been

deposited by one Bikash Chandra Saha, the defendantappellant no. 3, who allegedly was an employee of the tenant i.e. the defendant-appellant no.1.

There is a finding in the appellate judgment that deposits made by the said Bikash Chandra Saha are invalid deposits according to law, since he is not

the tenant under the landlords-respondents 1 and 2.

It has not been shown to us that the appellate judgment suffers from any perversity warranting interference. Findings of fact having been recorded by

the appellate court based on appreciation of the evidence before it, we are of the considered opinion that this appeal does not involve any question of

law, not to speak of a substantial question of law, which would warrant admission of the appeal for further consideration.

The appeal stands dismissed, without any order for costs. In view of the aforesaid order, nothingsurvives for decision on the application for stay

(C.A.N. 9463 of 2015) and the same also stands dismissed. By filing C.A.N. 9455 of 2015, being an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil

Procedure Code, the appellants seek permission to adduce additional evidence.

Such evidence is sought to be relied on to impeach the finding of sub-letting on which the suit was also decreed. Since we have considered the ground

of default to have been established for eviction of the appellants, there is no need to consider the application. Accordingly, the application stands

dismissed.

At this stage, Mr. Chatterjee prays for a year’s time to vacate the suit property. We are of the opinion that six months time would be sufficient for

such purpose in the interest of justice. Mr. Chatterjee, in his usual fairness, does not bargain further. Needless to observe, the appellants shall continue

paying occupation charges @ Rs. 1,000/(Rupees One Thousand) per month starting from the month of May, 2018, the first of which shall be paid by

the 15th of June, 2018 and for the month of June, 2018 and onwards, by the 15th of each succeeding month in terms of this order.

In the event of nonâ€"payment of occupation charges for any particular month, the respondents 1 and 2 shall be at liberty to proceed with the

execution case in accordance with law. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.