The court clarified the limitations on directing a tenant to pay occupational charges during the pendency of an eviction proceeding, based on the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

1. The defendant/opposite party is a tenant in respect of a godown alongwith an office and a staff quarter admeasuring 5000 sq. ft., at premises no. 14, Kartick Chandra Dutta Road, Ramkrishnapur, Howrah, at a monthly rental of Rs.18,000/- payable according to English Calendar month.

2. The tenancy of the said defendant was terminated by the plaintiff/petitioner by issuing a notice dated 29th July, 2015 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since the defendant did not hand over the vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff after expiry of the notice period, the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendant. In the said suit he has also prayed for recovery of arrear rent and also for mesne profit till recovery of possession of the suit premises. Several other incidental reliefs have also been claimed by the plaintiff in the said suit. Immediately after filing the said suit, an application was taken out by the plaintiff/petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, interalia, praying for issuance of a direction upon the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- per month as occupational charges in respect of the suit premises on and from 21st August, 2015 till eviction of the defendant. It is alleged in the said application that since the monthly rent of the suit premises is more than Rs.10,000/-; the tenancy of the defendant is governed by the Transfer of Property Act and as such, the defendant is not entitled to get any protection which is available to the tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. It was further alleged therein that since the defendant failed and neglected to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/petitioner after expiry of the notice period, the defendant became a trespasser and as such he is liable to pay damages for wrongful use and occupation of the suit premises.

3. According to the plaintiff the reasonable rent of the suit premises will be Rs.2,00,000/-per month and since the plaintiff is deprived of enjoying such rental income from the suit premises because of such wrongful use and occupation of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to get occupational charges @ Rs.2,00,000/- per month since the time of termination of his tenancy. Such application was filed immediately after filing the suit and that too even before issuance of the summons in the said suit.

4. Writ of summons has not yet been served upon the defendant. The defendant has also not filed any written statement in the said suit disclosing his defence. Even the time for filing the written statement in the said suit has not yet expired.

5. However even at this stage, the defendant on receipt of a notice relating to the plaintiff's said application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure appeared in the said suit and filed objection against the plaintiff's said application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. The learned Trial Judge by the impugned order dated 20th August, 2016 kept the hearing of the plaintiff's said application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in abeyance as the learned Trial Judge was of the view that such petition of the plaintiff should be decided after taking evidence in connection with the suit.

7. The legality of the said order passed by the learned Trial Judge is under challenge in this revisional application at the instance of the plaintiff/petitioner.

8. In course of hearing of the said revisional application, notice of the learned Single Judge of this Court was drawn to a decision of another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kanak Projects Limited vs. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., reported in (2014) 2 CHN Calcutta 405. Relying upon the principles as laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the said Kanak Projects' case, the revisional court was invited to interfere with the impugned order.

9. In Kanak Projects' case it was held that if the Trial C