IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya C.O. 2016 of 2026 With C.O. 2017 of 2026 Gem Refineries (1997) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Kolkata For the Petitioner (in both the civil revision application) For the Opposite Party (in both the civil revision application) : Mr. Saptanshu Basu, Sr. Adv., Mr. Suman Dutt, Sr., Adv., Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta Mr. Soumyajit Mishra : Mr. Subhankar Nag, Ms. Antalina Guha, Ms. Shinjita Ray, Ms. Harshita Purohit Heard on : 01/07/2026 Judgment on : 01/07/2026 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya , J. : 1. The order No.91 dated June 20, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 10th Court, Alipore, South 24- Parganas in P.P. Appeal No.5 of 2006 is under challenge in C.O. No.2017 of 2026. The later part of the order being No.91 dated June 20, 2026 passed in the selfsame proceeding is under challenge in C.O. No.2016 of 2026. 2 2. Since the issues involved in the two civil revision applications are interconnected, the same were heard analogously and are disposed of by the common order. 3. In a proceeding under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “1971 Act”), an order of eviction dated May 2, 2006 in Proceeding No.731 and 731R of 2005 was passed against the petitioner. Such order was challenged by the petitioner in P.P. Appeal No.5 of 2006. In connection with the said appeal the petitioner has filed an application for stay of operation of the order dated May 2, 2006. Such application is still pending adjudication before the learned Judge of the Appellate Court. 4. Thereafter, an order dated November 6, 2008 was passed in the aforesaid proceeding before the Estate Officer appointing an officer to evict the petitioner from the premises in question which was under challenge at the instance of the petitioner in P.P. Appeal No.15 of 2009. 5. Pursuant to an order passed in P.P. Appeal No.15 of 2009, the petitioner claims to have paid the amount as directed by the Appellate Court. 6. Subsequently, a notice dated May 15, 2026 under Section 7 of the 1971 Act was served upon the petitioner directing the petitioner to submit a reply to the show-cause within a specified time frame. The petitioner claims to have submitted a reply to the said show-cause notice within the time limit stipulated in the said notice. 7. However, alleging that the men and agents of the authorities of Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Port of Kolkata is threatening to evict the petitioner from the premises in question during the pendency of P.P. Appeal No.5 of 2006, petitioner took out an application captioned as “An Application for Appropriate 3 Order”, inter alia, praying for an order of injunction restraining the respondents, i.e., the opposite parties herein its men, agents, employees, servants and/or assigns from evicting the petitioner from the plot in question. 8. The petitioner filed another application for stay sometimes in the month of June, 2026, praying for stay of operation of an order dated July 5, 2025 passed by the Estate Officer in Proceeding No.731 of 2005. The last two applications were disposed of by the learned Judge of the Appellate Court by the impugned orders. 9. Mr. Basu, learned senior advocate appears for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner purchased a factory as a going concern by virtue of an auction sale conducted by the Company Court. He further submits that by the said order the authorities of the Port were directed to grant lease in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner was also directed to pay a amount on account of license fees. He further submits that the order of the learned Single Bench was subsequently affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in an appeal arising out of the said order. Mr. Basu further submits that the petitioner paid the amount(s) as directed by this Court and there was no default on the part of the petitioner in payment of any amount. He further submits that till date the direction passed by this Court with regard to the grant of lease has not been complied with by the Port Trust Authorities. He further submits that since the petitioner is in occupation of the premises in question upon payment of an amount fixed by this Hon’ble Court towards occupation of the premises in question, an order of stay of operation of the eviction order should be passed pending hearing of the P.P. Appeal No.5 of 2006. He further submits that over and above the amount directed to be paid as licence 4 fee the petitioner has also paid substantial amount pursuant to an order passed in P.P. Appeal No.15 of 2009. 10. Mr. Nag, learned advocate appearing for the Port Trust Authorities seriously disputes the submission of Mr. Basu. He submits that the amount of licence fee was fixed by this Hon’ble Court sometimes in the year 1998 and the petitioner cannot be allowed to occupy a lucrative property at such a nominal amount. He submits that the petitioner is exploiting the property for commercial purpose and in view of the provisions of Section 9(3) of the 1971 Act, the petitioner has to pay occupation charges at the current rate, if the petitioner seeks an order of stay of enforcement of the eviction order passed under Section 5 of the 1971 Act. In support of such contention Mr. Nag draws the attention of the Court to an order dated July 2, 2012 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in C.O. No.3706 of 2009. 11. Mr. Nag further submits that the petitioner did not make any sincere attempt to have the stay application heard by the Appellate Court and it is well-settled that mere pendency of an appeal does not operate as a stay of operation of the order of eviction. He further submits that a challenge to the action of the authorities of Port Trust in issuing a notice under the provisions of Section 7 of the 1971 Act cannot form the subject matter of an appeal arising out of an order passed under Section 5 of the 1971 Act. He submits that the applications which were disposed of by the impugned orders were not maintainable in the eye of law and was rightly rejected by the learned Judge of the Appellate Court. 12. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed. 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is presently in occupation of the premises in question. It is also not in dispute that the 5 amount was fixed by the Company Court sometimes in the year 1998. The petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the 1971 Act challenging an eviction order passed under Section 5 of the said Act. 14. Sub-section (3) of Section 9 states that where an appeal is preferred from an order of the Estate Officer, the appellate officer may stay the enforcement of that order for such period and on such conditions as he deems fit. 15. The learned senior counsel of the petitioner would contend that since an amount has been fixed by this Hon’ble Court towards licence fee as a condition for occupation of the premises in question the petitioner cannot be asked to pay any amount over and above the said amount. 16. On the contrary it is the contention of the Port Trust Authorities that considering the fact that the amount of licence fee was fixed sometimes in the year 1998 and in connection with a proceeding before a Company Court, the Appellate Court is not bound by such fixation of an amount of licence fee while considering the prayer for stay of enforcement of an order passed under Section 5 of the 1971 Act. 17. Such issues are to be gone into while deciding the application for stay filed by the petitioner which is pending adjudication before the Appellate Court. 18. Since the stay application is pending, this Court refrains from making any observation on the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsels for the respective parties on the quantum of occupation charges to be fixed as a condition for grant of stay under Section 9(3) of the 1971 Act. 19. At this stage, Mr. Nag, learned advocate appearing for the Port Trust Authorities submits that as per the calculation made at the current rate an amount more than Rs.4 crores is lying due and payable by the petitioner. 6 20. It is well settled that mere pendency of an appeal does not automatically operate as an order of stay of the enforcement of the order of eviction. In the event the order of eviction is enforced/ implemented during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal would become infructuous and the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury. On the other hand, an order restraining the opposite parties from enforcing the order of eviction would deprive the opposite party from enjoying the fruits of the eviction order. Therefore, in order to strike a balance, some condition should be imposed if the opposite parties are restrained from enforcing the order of eviction. 21. Petitioner is in occupation of a property and exploiting the same for commercial purpose. Thus, they are liable to pay charges for occupation of the property in question. Since the stay application is pending, this Court is inclined to pass an order directing the petitioner to deposit a lumpsum amount before the appellate Court. 22. In view of the observations made hereinbefore this Court feels that the petitioner should be directed to deposit an amount before the Appellate Court as a condition for an order of stay. 23. There shall be an unconditional order of stay of operation of the eviction order dated May 2, 2006 passed by the Estate Officer in Proceeding Nos.731 and 731R of 2005 till August 10, 2026 subject to the following conditions. (i) If on or before August 10, 2026 the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.2 crores before the Appellate Court, the order of stay shall continue till the disposal of the stay application. (ii) If any objection to the stay application has not been filed by the opposite party, such objection shall be filed on or before July 10, 2026 upon serving an advance copy of 7 the same to the learned advocate for the petitioner before the Appellate Court. (iii) In the event, the written objection has already been filed a copy of the same should be served upon the learned advocate for the petitioner within the time limit mentioned hereinbefore for abundant caution. (iv) It will be open to the petitioner to file the reply to the said objection on or before July 31, 2026 upon serving an advance copy of the same to the learned advocate for the opposite party before the Appellate Court. 24. The learned Judge of the Appellate Court is requested to take up the hearing of the stay application on August 13, 2026 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible but preferably by the end of the month of September, 2026 without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. 25. The learned Judge of the Appellate Court is further requested to fix short dates of hearing of the stay application in the event the hearing on the stay application cannot be concluded on August 13, 2026. 26. It is however made clear that the deposit of the aforesaid amount shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties in the stay application as well as in the appeal. The learned Judge of the Appellate Court shall be free to decide on the conditions that may be imposed under Section 9(3) of the 1971 Act without being influenced by the fact that this Court has directed the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount. 27. It is also made clear that the amount deposited hereinbefore shall be adjusted with any amount that the learned Appellate Court may fix on account of occupation charges, if any. 8 28. Needless to mention that in case of the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the time limit mentioned hereinbefore, the order of stay shall immediately stand vacated without any further reference to this Court and the learned Judge of the Appellate Court shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. 29. Before parting, it is made clear that the application for stay shall be decided without being influenced by any observations made by the Appellate Court in the impugned orders as well as those recorded hereinbefore. 30. The said deposit shall be invested in short term deposits with any Nationalised Bank fetching highest rate of interest. 31. With the above observations and directions CO 2016 of 2026 and CO 2017 of 2026 stand disposed of. 32. There will be no order as to costs. 33. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) Item No.6 & 7 Court No.-6 Aritra [Asst. Reg. (Court)]