Court No. 6 (265719) 25.09.2026 (AD 28) (S. Banerjee) CO 3391 of 2026 Sekh Kutubuddin Vs. Panchanan Das Mr. Aharnish Ghosh …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the appellant and is directed against an order dated August 27, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track 1st Court Barasat, North 24 Parganas in Title Appeal No. 50 of 2022. By the order impugned the learned Judge of the appellate court directed the petitioner to pay a consolidated amount of Rs. 80,000/- as a condition for extension of the order of stay for a limited period. The petitioner has suffered a decree of eviction. The date of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial judge is September 28, 2022. The suit property is a shop-room measuring about 7 feet X 12 feet. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would contend that the monthly rental of the suit property was below Rs. 400/- per month. 2 The petitioner has preferred an appeal challenging the eviction decree and if during the pendency of the said appeal the possession is recovered by executing the said decree, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Any order of stay of the execution case would also deprive the decree-holder from enjoying the fruits of the decree. For such deprivation from enjoyment of the fruits of the decree, the decree-holder is entitled to occupational charges. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would contend that this Court on a previous occasion passed an order on September 18, 2025 in CO 1982 of 2025 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as a condition for stay of the execution case. He submits that since the petitioner has paid the said sum pursuant to an order passed by this Court, the petitioner could not have been directed to pay any further amount on account of occupational charges. After going through the order dated September 18, 2025, this Court finds that the execution case was stayed till the end of the month of June, 2026 or until disposal of the title appeal, whichever is earlier, subject to payment of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 40,000/-. It is not in dispute that the appeal could not be disposed of within June, 2026. Thus, the petitioner is 3 liable to pay further occupation charges as the petitioner is in possession of the decretal property. Since the decree for eviction was passed sometime in the month of September, 2022 and the petitioner is enjoying the possession of the same in spite of suffering an eviction decree, this Court is of the considered view that the direction passed by the learned Judge of the appellate court for payment of further lumpsum amount on account of occupational charges as a condition for extension of the order of stay, cannot be said to be an unreasonable one considering the fact that the petitioner is exploiting the decreetal property for commercial purpose and more than four years have elapsed since the passing of the eviction decree. For such reason this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge of the appellate court. Accordingly, this revisional application stands disposed of. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)