Sl. 22 14.08.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 2676 of 2026 Sri Chandan Dutta -versus- Smt. Lipika Dutta Mr. Tulsidas Roy Mr. Tirthankar Roy ..for the petitioner Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Mr. Hafizur Rahaman ..for the opposite party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the appellant in Title Appeal No. 24 of 2026 and is directed against an order being no.4 dated 9th July, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court at Barrackpore, 24 Parganas (North). By the order impugned the application filed by the petitioner praying for stay of operation of the judgement and decree dated 23rd February, 2026 passed by the learned trial judge in Ejectment Suit No. 5 of 2015 stood rejected. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that pending adjudication of the title appeal, unless an order of stay is passed, the appeal would become infructuous. He submits that the learned judge of the appellate court ought to have passed an order of stay. 2 Per contra Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondent/opposite party submits that the learned trial judge passed a decree for eviction and the petitioner has preferred an appeal challenging such decree. He submits that in the event stay of operation of the eviction decree is passed, the petitioner should be directed to pay occupational charges in respect of his occupation in the decreetal property during the pendency of the said appeal. He further submits that the present market rate of letting out of a similar property in the same locality is Rs. 15,000/- per month. In reply Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the opposite party is claiming an unreasonable amount on account of occupational charges. He further submits that the occupational charges of the suit property cannot be more than Rs. 5,000/- per month. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. The opposite party filed a suit for eviction being Ejectment Suit No. 5 of 2015 which was decreed by a judgement and decree dated February 23, 2026. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said eviction decree. In the event the petitioner is evicted from the decreetal property by way of execution of the eviction decree the instant appeal would become infructuous and the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury. However, any order of stay of the operation of the 3 judgement and decree or stay of all further proceedings of the execution case would result in depriving the decree holder from enjoying the fruits of the eviction decree during the pendency of the appeal. For such reason, this Court is of the considered view that since the petitioner is enjoying possession of the decreetal property they are liable to pay occupational charges to the opposite party for such occupation of the decreetal premises as a condition for stay. In the written objection to the stay application the opposite party has specifically stated that the present market rate of rent of the decreetal property is not less than Rs. 15,000/- per month. However, no document in support of the occupational charges of the property in question has been produced by either of the parties before the learned judge of the appellate court. Ordinarily under such circumstances the matter should have been remanded to the learned judge of the appellate court to decide on the quantum of occupational charges. But considering the fact that the hearing of the appeal has already been fixed, remand to the learned judge of the appellate court for deciding on the quantum of the occupational charges would further delay the hearing of the appeal. For such reason, this Court is inclined to pass an order of stay on condition that the petitioner shall pay the 4 occupational charges to the opposite party month by month at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month with effect from the date of the judgement and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Barrackpore in Ejectment Suit 5 of 2015 to the opposite party herein till the disposal of the Title Appeal. There shall be an unconditional order of stay of all further proceedings of the Title Execution Case No. 6 of 2026 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Dvision), 2nd Court at Barrackpore till 7th September, 2026 subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay the arrear occupational charges with effect from the date of passing of the judgement and decree by the learned trial judge till the month of July, 2026 on or before 7.9.2026. The current occupational charges at the aforesaid rate on and from the month of August, 2026 shall be paid within seventh day of each succeeding English Calendar month. In the event the current occupational charges for the month of August and the arrear occupational charges are paid within the aforesaid time limit, the order of stay shall stand extended till the disposal of the appeal. It is, however, made clear that in case of default in payment of either the current occupational charges or the arrear occupational charges within the time limit stipulated hereinbefore, the order of stay shall automatically stand vacated and the opposite party shall be free to proceed with the execution case. 5 With the above observations and directions, C.O. 2676 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)