ARIJIT BANERJEE,J. - (1.) In view of the good grounds shown, the marginal delay in preferring the appeal from the two orders dated May 18, 2017 and June 19, 2017 is condoned.
(2.) The order impugned cannot be sustained as it is completely without jurisdiction. The State of West Bengal through the 1st Land Acquisition Collector or through some other official was formerly in possession of a part of the joint property. The joint property is, without doubt, the subject-matter of the partition suit pending in this Court. By the order impugned, occupation charges liable to be paid by the State for the State's perceived unauthorised occupation of the premises in question have been assessed. Clearly, this was beyond of the authority of the Court in seisin of the partition suit. A landlord-tenant dispute between the joint owners and the tenant cannot fall within the purview of a partition suit and unless the tenant expressly offers to enhance the quantum of rent and such offer is recorded in an order, the Court can scarcely take upon itself the burden to assess fair rent or the like. In any event, the appellant is not a party to the partition suit.
(3.) Since the orders impugned dated May 18, 2017 and June 19, 2017 purport to decide on the occupation charges payable by the State for its possession of a part of the joint property, such orders have to be regarded as being without jurisdiction and set aside without any further ado.;