Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 475 (CAL)

Satyanarayan More v. Milagrina Rose Correia @ Millie Correia

2020-06-03

SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, SOUMEN SEN

body2020
JUDGMENT Soumen Sen, J. - The issues involved in this appeal are identical to the issues in F.A. 126 of 2019. 2. The judgment passed by the learned 9th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta on 17th April, 2019 is set aside. There shall be a decree for recovery of khas possession of the property in question. In the event the respondent-defendant delivers peaceful and vacant possession within a period of one year from date, subject to payment of occupation charges at the rate of Rs.3500 per month commencing from June 2020 to be paid by 20th June, 2020 and by 10th of each succeeding month by cheque or electronic transfer to the designated bank account of the appellant to be provided by the appellant within one week from date and pay a further sum of Rs.30,000/- towards occupation charges for the past periods within six weeks from date. In default of making payment of any of the monthly occupation charges or the said sum of Rs.30,000/- the decree shall be immediately executable after the lockdown is lifted in Kolkata and the plaintiff shall be entitled to apply before the trial court for appointment of an advocate commissioner for determination of mesne profits. However we make it clear that should an occasion arises for determination of mesne profits the said sum of Rs.30,000/- should not be construed as determination of mesne profits for the period under unauthorised occupation. The appellants-plaintiffs have agreed that they shall not claim mesne profits for the period of unauthorised occupation in the event the plaintiff/respondent delivers khas possession within one year from date. 3. On such consideration the appeal succeeds. I agree (Soumen Sen, J.)