Form No. J(2) In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Justice Sandip Kumar De FMA 1058 of 2026 IA No: CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 Satya Narayan Jaiswal Vs. Rajiv Ghosh For the appellant : Mr. Anirban Roy, Mr. Debjit Basu For the respondent : Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Mr. Syed Adil Murshed, Mr. Barnik Ghosh Heard on : 18.09.2026 Judgment on : 18.09.2026 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:- 1. The appeal is admitted to be heard on the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal. 2. The scope of the appeal is limited. Therefore, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing along with the applications. 2 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant obtained an eviction decree on the ground that the respondent is an unlawful occupant of the suit premises within the contemplation of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The said decree, it is submitted, was affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. It is submitted that pursuant to the said decree, a decree of mesne profits was also sought. In connection with said proceeding, a Commissioner has been appointed for the purpose of assessment of the mesne profits. 5. In the interregnum, an application was filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking a direction on the judgment debtor/respondent to deposit before the Court a lumpsum amount of Rs.50 lakh towards interim occupation charges. In prayer (B) of the said application, an ad interim order was also sought directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,300/-, being the admitted and undisputed dues, as set out in paragraph no.6 of the said application. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that accordingly, the learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in dismissing the said application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant/respondent submits that insofar as prayer (B) is concerned, which relates to the claim of mesne profits to the tune of Rs.1,00,300/- at the agreed rate of rent 3 for the period between June, 2021 and April, 2026, learned counsel has instruction that the respondent is agreeable to pay such amount. However, it is pointed out that a review application is now pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court till date. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that there are three landlords, including the appellant, in respect of the suit premises vis-à-vis the respondent. An apprehension is expressed by the respondent that in the event the payment is made solely to the appellant, the respondent may not have any protection against subsequent similar claims by the other two landlords. 9. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that in view of the concession given on instruction by learned counsel for the respondent, the purpose of the appeal, which is apparently limited to the extent of prayer (B) of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is satisfied. 10. In any event, the scope of Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code is restricted only to such amount of money, which is the subject-matter of the suit, as admitted to be held by the defendant or which admittedly belongs to or is due to the plaintiff. Only the agreed rent for the period between June, 2021 and April, 2026 can be said to come within the scope of such admitted amount, and not the entire claim of mesne profits of the plaintiff/appellant, which is sub judice in the Trial Court. 4 11. Insofar as the future claims by the other landlords are concerned, we make it clear that since it is only the present appellant who is the decree holder, and there being no other similar decree passed in favour of any other landlord, the payment of Rs.1,00,300/- for the period between June, 2021 till April, 2026 to the appellant shall shield the respondent from any further claim in that regard by the other landlords, if any. We further clarify that in the event any such claim is raised by the other landlords, it will be for them to make such claim before the appropriate forum/court of law against the present appellant and not the respondent. 12. Be that as it may, in view of the above, FMA 1058 of 2026 is disposed of by modifying the impugned order, bearing Order No. 49 dated August 07, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, Fifth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No.1068 of 2021, and directing the respondent to pay to the appellant an amount of Rs.1,00,300/- by way of mesne profits for the period between June, 2021 and April, 2026 within a week from date. 13. Such payment shall absolve the respondent of any further liability to pay any amount in respect of the suit property by way of mesne profits for the aforesaid period. 14. Moreover, subject to the above payment being made by the respondent to the appellant within a week, in the event a decree of mesne profits is passed in favour of the plaintiff/appellant at the final disposal of the proceeding pending in that regard exceeding the 5 amount of Rs.1,00,300/-, the quantum of Rs.1,00,300/- shall be deducted from such amount for the purpose of calculation of the mesne profits payable by the respondent to the appellant in the final analysis. 15. It is expected that the learned Trial Judge shall dispose of the final decree proceeding in respect of the appellant’s claim for mesne profits as expeditiously as possible, positively by the end of November, 2026. 16. CAN 1 of 2026 and CAN 2 of 2026 are consequentially disposed of as well. 17. There will be no order as to costs. 18. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) I agree. (Sandip Kumar De, J.) AD-19 TN