The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a plaintiff to seek occupational charges under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the significance of the last agreed rent or licence fee in determining such charges.

JUDGMENT :

1. Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the opposite party is taken on record.

2. The revisional application has been filed challenging an order dated April 19, 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Barasat, District North 24 Parganas in Title Suit No.873 of 2018.

3. By the order impugned, the learned court rejected an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff on September 25, 2019. By the said application, the plaintiff prayed for a direction upon the defendant to pay occupational charges of Rs.19,000/- per month along with arrears and interest, since September 30, 2013, till the present date.

4. Written objection was filed by the defendant denying such right of the plaintiff to claim occupational charges during pendency of the suit for eviction. The suit is for eviction of a licensee, upon expiry of licence.

5. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner/owner relies on the decision of this court in the matter of Green Band Apartments Private Limited and others vs. The Mint Matrix and others reported in 2021 SCC Online Cal 428 : (2021)2 ICC 269.

6. It is submitted that this court had held that the occupier of the premises was liable to pay the agreed monthly rent, at the last paid rate with arrears, which could be adjusted against the mesne profits in case the suit is decreed or against rent, if the suit fails and the occupant continues to occupy the premises either as a licensee or as a tenant.

7. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the decision of the Division Bench in K.K. Saha & Co. Pvt. Ltd. s. Ashok Agarwal reported in 2018 (1) CHN 497 (Cal), would not be applicable in this case as the written statement would indicate the admission of the defendant that she was a licensee and she was inducted in the premises as a licensee by the petitioner. The contractual rent was fixed at Rs.19,000/- per month. The reported decision of this court in Green Band (supra) would be squarely applicable.

8. Mr. Bhattacharya further submits that the learned court was also wrong in holding that Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be pressed into service by the owner in making such prayer for occupational charges.

9. Learned advocate for the opposite party/tenant, submits that the payment of occupational charges is the final relief claimed in the suit. The court, at the interim stage, cannot direct payment of such charges, until the suit is decided. That the decision in Kanak Projects Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. reported in 2014 (2) CHN (Cal) 405 was not good law and the same has been answered by the Division Bench in K. K. Saha (supra).

10. It is further contended that if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, the arrear rents would be paid to the plaintiff as per the decision of the court and the decree passed therein. In the meantime, when the lincence had expired, the licensee was under no obligation to pay any charges for using the premises, in respect of which they had been inducted.

11. Reliance has also been placed on the counterclaim filed by the defendant, claiming a declaration of the tenancy in respect of the suit property.

12. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. In my opinion, Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers inherent power to the court. In exercise of such power, the court can pass orders for the ends of justice. The owner can apply before the learned court for a direction upon the defendant to pay the occupational charge or the charges for using the premises during the pendency of the suit as per the admitted/contractual rent, based on the agreement between the parties.

13. The Civil Procedure Code does not provide for any other mechanism by which such application could have been made. Secondly, the observation of the learned court that without a valuer having valued the property and the property in the surrounding locality, the determination of the occupational charges could no