The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the jurisdiction to direct payment of admitted rent or usage charges during the pendency of a suit, and the landlord is entitled to receive compensation for the use and occupation of the premises at an amount equal to the monthly rent payable by the tenant.

JUDGMENT

Shampa Sarkar, J. - In this revisional application, the petitioners have challenged the order dated July 22, 2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 57 of 2016. The petitioners as plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 57 of 2016 against the opposite parties/defendants Nos. 1 to 4 for a decree of recovery of vacant possession of the suit property, for a decree of a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as mesne profits, tentatively calculated upto the date of filing of the suit, further mesne profits @ Rs. 50,000/- per day from September 9, 2016 till the delivery of vacant possession, damages, compensation and permanent injunction.

2. The petitioners are the joint owners of premises No. 29, Broad Street, Kolkata 700019being a G+5 building. The petitioners were interested to start a business of running a guest house and converted the 3rd, 4th and 5th floor into a guest house consisting of 36 rooms in 12 self contained flats. The petitioner No.1 entered into an agreement with the opposite party No.1, represented by the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 on November 19, 2014 to lease out the said floors for the purpose of running a guest house with effect from December 15, 2014. The opposite parties entered into an agreement with the proforma opposite parties for the purpose of taking on hire, furniture, fixtures, fittings and other amenities along with the electrical appliances and fittings for carrying out the said business. According to the lease agreement, it was the obligation of the opposite parties/defendants to obtain necessary licences and registration for running and operating the said business. During the course of running and operating the business, the petitioners came to know that the requisite licences, permissions and approvals including the necessary permission from the West Bengal Fire Services Authority as required for running and operating the said business had not been obtained by the opposite parties. Even after repeated reminders, the opposite parties failed to comply with the terms of the said agreement and continued with their illegal activities. Thus, the petitioners terminated the agreement dated November 19, 2014 by a notice dated June 1, 2016 and directed the opposite party to hand over complete and vacant possession of the said premises on or before September 1, 2016. That the opposite parties failed to do so and continued to be in occupation of the suit property. Hence, Title Suit No. 57 of 2016 was filed on September 9, 2016 for recovery of possession, mesne profits, damages and permanent injunction.

3. The opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 contested the proceeding by filing their written statement and contended that the termination notice was illegal, arbitrary and the opposite parties were not obliged to quit and vacate the suit property.

4. Subsequently the petitioners filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, inter alia, seeking direction upon the opposite parties to deposit the usage charges amounting to Rs. 48 lakh in respect of the said building along with interest @ 15% per annum on such amount before the learned Court, or in the alternative to deposit the said amount with the petitioner till the disposal of the suit. A written objection was filed to the said application by the parties. The learned Court by the order impugned dated July 22, 2017 rejected the said application on the ground that the plaintiffs having terminated the lease agreement, treating the same to be cancelled, did not have any right to claim any amount from the defendants on account of contracted rent. The learned Court further held that when the landlord was disturbing the peaceful possession of the tenant, the landlord could not claim any occupational charges or from the tenant. Relying on the decision of this court in the matter of K.K. Saha & Co. Pvt. Ltd v. Ashok Agarwal, (2018) 1 CalHN 497 (CAL) , the learned Judge held that an order for payment of occup