Biswanath Somadder, J. - (1.) By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant appeal and the application for stay, we notice that in the facts of the instant case the applicant/appellant did not deposit the transfer fees from January 17, 2008, till date.
(2.) The learned Single Judge after considering the entire facts of the instant case has been pleased to observe as follows: - "Having heard learned counsel representing both parties and on consideration of the impugned notice dated November 6, 2013 I find that the erstwhile lessee did not deposit the transfer fees from January 17, 2008. The reasonable amount of interest on the demand will be at least @ 9% per annum on Rs. 1,98,945/-, as the said rate was prevailing on fixed deposit/term deposit in the year 2008. The petitioner will deposit the transfer fees after lapse of almost 9 years. The principal amount of Rs. 1,98,945/- along with interest which would have accrued on the demand made in the notice dated January 17, 2008, would have been more than what is indicated in the notice by the Estate Manager on November 6, 2013. Moreover, the Estate Manager was directed by the learned Single Judge to indicate the total amount of demand for mutation of the name of the petitioner within specified period of time. So, the notice issued by the Estate Manager, Kalyani on November 6, 2013 is in compliance with the direction of this Court."
(3.) Consequently, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition finding no cogent reasons to interfere with the impugned notice dated November 6, 2013, issued by the Estate Manager to the appellant/writ petitioner.;