Supreme Court Issues Stern Warning in Kolkata Property Occupancy Case, Upholds Fair Market Dues.


27 October 2025 Special Leave Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Property Law >> Personal Law  

India's Supreme Court, on October 27, 2025, reinforced its strong position on compliance in the set of Special Leave Petitions (SLP (C) Nos. 16152–16197 of 2022) brought by Raj Kumar Ghosh and others against Jyoti Biswas and others, arising out of a series of appeals before the Calcutta High Court. The Bench headed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan ordered strict compliance with previous orders with regard to payment of occupational charges on premises under receivership.

The conflict, based on intricate joint-ownership and tenancy disputes over business properties, had previously led the Supreme Court to set occupational charges at Rs.100/sq. ft. from 2022. The Court noted that the extended occupation of the premises without proper payment deserved judicial oversight for ensuring fairness during the pendency of the main appeals.


 

Importantly, the Receiver had been asked to ascertain individual liabilities of every occupant, serving notices, and recovery of deposits through the trial court. But in the recent hearing, the Court was informed of gross defaults of compliance, such as dishonour of a cheque for Rs.12.5 lakh drawn towards the Receiver's fees and expenses. Terming the episode as "disturbing", the Court was uncompromising and ordered payment forthwith through demand draft. Besides, it also levied a penalty of Rs.1 lakh to be paid to the Receiver within a week as compensation for the trouble caused by dishonour of the cheque.

The residents had also requested a rate reduction in occupational charge, alleging financial difficulties. The Court detected no substance in the plea, holding that the rate of Rs.100 per square foot had been reasonably determined and that reconsideration at this juncture would undermine the equitable structure already laid out. The Bench, however, granted one last opportunity to the occupants to pay the amounts the Receiver had ascertained within a month, warning that default would lead to repossession with the help of the police.

In a significant direction, the Court directed the Receiver to take back any non-compliant premises with the assistance of the Kolkata Police Commissioner. It also permitted the Receiver to submit a supplementary report detailing an unlisted shop found during the recent inspection. The case has been scheduled for further hearing on December 8, 2025.

While weighing judicial firmness against procedural fairness, the Supreme Court emphasized the tenet that interim possession of contentious premises cannot go on without prompt settlement of monetary dues. The order brings to the fore the judiciary's increasing emphasis on accountability even at the interregnum level of property cases, which indicates that good faith and compliance cannot be done without in court-supervised possession cases.