Dismissed¶16

Dhanilal Roy and Anr. v. Suraj Buildcon Private Limited

Calcutta HC18 Nov 2025CO/192/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court, Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench; CO 192 of 2025 and CO 198 of 2025; Debangsu Basak, J.; judgment dated November 18, 2025; Article 227 Constitution of India; civil revisional jurisdiction; occupation charges; stay of execution of eviction decree; decree on admission; Title Suit No.56 of 2019; Title Appeal No.13 of 2022; Order No.48 dated August 28, 2025; Rs.60,000/- per month occupation charges; instalments for arrears; 3 cottahs prime locality Siliguri; perverse exercise of discretion; unconditional stay refused; both revisions dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The suit property is about 3 cottahs of land in a prime locality in Siliguri, and the quantification of the occupation charges payable by the defendants at Rs.60,000/- per month cannot be said to be perverse. ¶13

Dhanilal Roy and Anr. Vs Suraj Buildcon Private… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order fixing occupation charges as a condition for grant of stay of the decree for eviction warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

There is no material irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

¶13

Key takeaways

A defendant suffering a decree for eviction need not be granted an unconditional stay; the learned Appeal Court exercised discretion in fixing a quantum of occupation charges as a condition for stay, and that exercise of discretion cannot be held to be perverse.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revisional applications CO 192 of 2025 (by defendants in Title Suit No.56 of 2019) and CO 198 of 2025 (by the plaintiff therein, Suraj Buildcon Private Limited) challenged Order No.48 dated August 28, 2025 passed in Title Appeal No.13 of 2022, whereby the learned Appeal Court, as a condition for stay of the decree for eviction (decree dated August 11, 2022, passed on admission), directed payment of occupation charges of Rs.60,000/- per month from the date of the decree with instalments for arrears. The defendants argued the fixation ignored the property's actual situation, occupation, income capacity and their valuation report; the plaintiff sought at least Rs.5,00,000/- per month. Held (Debangsu Basak, J.): the suit property being about 3 cottahs in a prime locality of Siliguri, neither the quantification nor the exercise of discretion in fixing occupation charges as a stay-condition was perverse; a defendant suffering an eviction decree need not get an unconditional stay; no material irregularity warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Both CO 192 of 2025 and CO 198 of 2025 dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶1

1 CO 192 of 2025 with CO 198 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

Present:

¶4

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

¶5

CO 192 of 2025

¶6

Sri Dhanilal Roy & Anr.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Suraj Buildcon Private Limited

¶9

with

¶10

CO 198 of 2025

¶11

Suraj Buildcon Private Limited Vs.

¶12

Sri Dhanilal Roy & Anr.

¶13

For the Petitioners in CO 192 of 2025 :Mr. Binod Kumar Chakravorty, Advocate and Mr. Shashi Prakash Kanodia, Advocate For the defendants in CO198 of 2025

¶14

For the respondent in CO 192 of 2025:Mr. Surojit Kr. Mitra, Ld. Sr. Advocate and Mr. Debasish Mukhopadhyay, Advocate

¶15

For the Petitioner in CO 198 of 2025 Mr. Rajat Das, Advocate

¶16

Ms. Madhushri Dutta, Advocate

¶17

Mr. Rakesh Chakraborty, Advocate

¶18

Heard & Judgment on : November 18, 2025

¶19

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

¶20

Two revisional applications are taken up for analogous hearing as they relate to Order No.48 dated August 28, 2025 passed in Title Appeal No.13 of 2022 arising out of Title Suit No.56 of 2019.

¶21

¶22

CO 192 of 2025 with CO 198 of 2025

¶23

For the sake of convenience, the parties in the two revisional applications are referred to as plaintiff and defendants, in the manner as they were arraigned in the Title Suit No.56 of 2019.

¶24

CO 192 of 2025 is at the behest of the defendants in Title Suit No.56 of 2019 while CO 198 of 2025 is at the behest of the plaintiff therein.

¶25

Learned Advocate appearing for the defendants in Title Suit No.56 of 2019 submits that, the defendants are the owners of the immovable property concerned. The suit was contested on behalf of the defendants by one particular defendant. There is a prima fac ie finding recorded by a Civil Court that, the defendants are the owners of the immovable property concerned. However, the particular defendant who contested the Title Suit No.56 of 2019 filed a written statement through an Advocate purporting to acknowledge that the defendants were licensee in the suit property.

¶26

Learned Advocate appearing for the defendants submits that, the learned Trial Judge in Title Suit No.56 of 2019 proceeded to pass a decree on admission on the basis of such erroneous statement made in the written statement. He submits that, defendants preferred an appeal which is Title Appeal No.13 of 2022.

¶27

Learned Advocate appearing for the defendants submits that, the issue as to occupation charges payable by the defendants were taken up for consideration in Title Appeal No.13 of 2022. In the impugned order, the learned Appeal Court was pleased to fix a sum of Rs.60,000/- per month as the occupation charges.

¶28

¶29

CO 192 of 2025 with CO 198 of 2025

¶30

Learned Advocate appearing for the defendants submits that, the defendants are persons with very small means of income. He draws the attention of the Court to the photographs of the property involved in the suit. He submits that, the learned Judge did not take into consideration the actual situation of the immovable property as also its present occupation or the capacity of such property to earn income.

¶31

Learned Advocate appearing for the defendants submits that, the learned Judge by the impugned order did not take into consideration the valuation report submitted on behalf of the defendants.

¶32

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that, the market value of the immovable property is much higher. Occupation charges should be fixed at a sum of at least Rs.5,00,000/- per month. The defendants suffered a decree for eviction on August 11, 2022.

¶33

Being aggrieved by such decree of eviction, the defendants filed Title Appeal No.13 of 2022.

¶34

Issue of occupation charges as a condition for the grant of stay for execution of the decree was taken into consideration by the learned Appeal Court. On such issue, the learned Appeal Court granted the parties here on a number of dates of hearing. By the impugned Order No.48 dated August 28, 2025, the learned Appeal Court directed payment of Rs.60,000/- per month from the date of the decree as occupation charges. Learned Appeal Court granted instalment for payment of the arrears.

¶35

4 CO 192 of 2025 with CO 198 of 2025

¶36

Records made available to the Court demonstrates that, both the parties produced materials for the purpose of calculation of the occupation charges before the learned Appeal Court. Learned Appeal Court, on perusal of such materials, arrived at a finding of occupation charges as recorded in the impugned order.

¶37

The suit property involved is about 3 cottahs of land situated in a prime locality in the city of Siliguri. The quantification of the occupation charges payable by the defendants cannot be said to be perverse.

¶38

Learned Appeal Court exercised discretion in fixing a condition for grant of stay of the decree for eviction. A defendant suffering a decree for eviction need not be granted an unconditional stay of the decree. The exercise of discretion in fixing a quantum of occupation charges as done by the learned Appeal Court cannot be held to be perverse exercise of discretion.

¶39

In such circumstances, I find no material irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶40

CO 192 of 2025 and CO 198 of 2025 are dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶41

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

¶42

(AD)

Dhanilal Roy and Anr. v. Suraj Buildcon Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanilal Roy and Anr. v. Suraj Buildcon Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puranjit Patra Vs Nirupa Bose (Patra)

Binod Prasad@Binod Kumar Prasad and Anr. Vs Mahendra Sharma and Anr.

Madanlal Agarwal @ Madanlal Gupta and Ors. Vs Ajay Kumar Bhattacharya

Reggie Lama Vs Tara Subba and Anr.

Promit Bose Vs Ankita Majumder (Bose)

Suraj Buildcon Private Limited Vs Dhanilal Roy and Anr.