IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.
Dilip Kumar Saha – Petitioner
Versus
Panchanan Khatua – Respondent
C.O. No. 598 of 2022
Decided On : 19-07-2024
Eviction - Title Suit - CPC Section 151 - The court emphasized the necessity of a reasoned order for occupation charges under Section 151 CPC, clarifying the obligations of the occupant regarding mesne profits and occupation charges during the pendency of eviction suits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for eviction and sought occupation charges under Section 151 CPC. The trial court adjourned the application for occupation charges until the final adjudication of the suit, prompting the petitioner to challenge this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court failed to provide a reasoned order regarding the application for occupation charges, which was a legal error. The court emphasized the obligation of the occupant to pay occupation charges during the suit.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in not deciding the application for occupation charges under Section 151 CPC and whether the occupant is liable to pay such charges during the pendency of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court must decide applications for occupation charges with a reasoned order, and that occupants are liable to pay such charges during the pendency of eviction suits.
Result: The order of the trial court is set aside, and the matter is remitted for a reasoned decision on the application for occupation charges.
JUDGMENT :
BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.
1. The petitioner before this Court is the plaintiff in a suit for eviction and is aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2021 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in. Title Suit No. 157 of 2016 adjourning the prayer of the petitioner/plaintiff for occupation charges made under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure till final adjudication of the suit. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Trial Judge has come up before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff before the Learned Trial Court may be summed up thus:
2. The petitioner pursuant to the institution of the suit filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for arrear occupational charges since March 2012 @ Rs. 700/-per month and thereafter month by month occupational charges to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-per month for the entire suit property till recovery of Khas Possession.
3. The defendant/opposite party did not file any objection to the petition, but only filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was rejected by Learned Court below.
4. On 15.12.2021 Learned Court below was pleased to pass an order on the application for occupation charges filed under Section 151 CPC by observing and directing as follows:
“Today is fixed for framing of issues and discoveries.
The plaintiff and Defendant are present by filing hazira. Heard the Learned Advocates for the Plaintiff and Defendant.
Let the issues be kept with the case record.
The petition in respect of occupation charges under Section 151 CPC will be considered at the time of final adjudication of the suit.
Fix 10.02.2022 for P. Hearing of the suit.”
3. The petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by the Order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the Learned Trial Court has come up with the instant application.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner/plaintiff that the Learned Court below failed to apply his judicious mind and passed the impugned order. It is further contended that the impugned order suffers from gross illegalities with material irregularities and is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that the Learned Court below did not go into the merits of the application and simply kept the same pending for trial.
5. Pursuant to the filing of this application notice was issued upon the opposite party. Opposite Party appeared and contested the case.
6. Heard Learned Advocate for the petitioner and Learned Advocate for the opposite party. Perused the petition filed and materials on record.
7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Learned Court below erred in not deciding the application for occupation charges. Learned Advocate further submits that the defendant/opposite party is liable to pay occupation charges for occupying the suit property which is a mesne profit.
8. Learned Advocate relies upon the following judicial decisions:
Vs.
Mint Matrix and Others
Reported in (2021) SCC Online Cal-428
Nripendra Narayan Ghosh
Vs.
Dr. Chandra Sekhar Murmu
Reported in (2017) 5 WBLR (Cal) 440
Learned Advocate for the opposite party disputes the submission of the Learned Advocate for the petitioner and relies upon the following decision:
K.K. Saha and Co. Pvt Ltd.
Vs.
Ashok Agarwal
Reported in 2018 (1) CHN (CAL) 497
9. As the matter in issue involves payment of arrear occupational charge since March 2012 @ Rs. 7000/-per month which was the last occupational charge paid by the defendant/opposite party, and payment of occupational charge to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-current month by month which amounts to awardin
Chandrakant Shankarrao Deshmukh v. Haribhau Tukaramji Kathane
Kanak Projects Limited vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
Occupants in eviction suits are obligated to pay occupation charges during the pendency of the suit, and courts must provide reasoned orders on such applications.
In eviction cases, interim mesne profits can be ordered only if the tenant's defense is nearly non-existent, and the claim for occupation charges must be reasonable.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.