AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present revisional application has been taken out by an award-debtor in a proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 against a composite order under Sections 4 and 7 respectively of the said Act, passed by the Estate Officer in favour of the opposite party against the petitioner.
The petitioner took out Miscellaneous Appeal No. 03 of 2017 against such composite order. In such appeal, the petitioner took out an application for stay of the order impugned therein.
By virtue of the present impugned order dated November 13, 2017, the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta has passed an order of stay subject to payment of occupational charges for the suit premises at the rate of Rs.10,500/- (Rupees ten thousand and five hundred) only for an area of 601 square feet per month and has also directed the petitioner to pay/deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lac) only with the Registrar, City Civil Court at Calcutta, by a month of the day of the impugned order.
The petitioner submits that by virtue of the impugned order the appellate court has virtually implemented the order of the Estate Officer, which is beyond jurisdiction of the appellate court at an interlocutory stage.
Placing reliance on Section 9 of the said Act, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the imposition of such exorbitant condition was an exercise without jurisdiction.
While countering such argument, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the occupational charges as directed are not at all exorbitant taking into account the location of the suit premises.
It is evident upon a perusal of Section 9(3) of the said Act that the appellate forum may stay the enforcement of the order of the Estate Officer on such conditions as he deems fit. The present exercise, thus, was entirely within the jurisdiction of the appellate court. However, it cannot be justified that for the stay of the self-same eviction award, the petitioner will be twice jeopardised by having to pay a monthly amount as well as a composite sum.
As such, C. O. No. 3956 of 2017 is disposed of by modifying the impugned order dated November 13, 2017 to the effect that the condition as to payment of occupational charges at the rate of Rs.10,500/- (Rupees ten thousand and five hundred) only per month will be a condition precedent for stay to operate in respect of the portion of the Estate Officer''s order whereby eviction of the petitioner was granted. The other condition as to payment or deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lac) only with the Registrar, City Civil Court at Calcutta, will be confined to being a condition precedent of stay to operate in respect of the portion of the Estate Officer''s order whereby damages under Section 7 of the said Act was directed to be paid.
It is expected that the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta, will dispose of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 03 of 2017 at an early date without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either party, preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.