IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that mesne profits can be claimed for unlawful occupation post-de-requisition, and res judicata does not apply if the compensation issue was not previously determined.

JUDGMENT :

Arijit Banerjee, J.

1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated February 7, 2014, whereby a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the suit of the respondent no. 1 herein being CS No. 489 of 2000. The claim in the suit was for mesne profits/compensation in respect of the suit premises owned by the respondent/plaintiff and occupied by the present appellant, for the period April 1, 1992 till August 31, 2000, amounting to Rs.61,46,000/- at the rate of Rs.2000/- per diem and mesne profits at the rate of Rs.3000/- per diem from September 1, 2000, till the date of delivery of vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises by the appellant herein to the plaintiff. The learned suit court decreed the suit against the defendant no. 2 (present appellant) and directed compensation to be paid to the plaintiff at different rates for different periods of time. Interest was also awarded at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The suit was dismissed as against the defendant no. 1 (State of West Bengal). Being aggrieved the defendant no. 2 is before us by way of this appeal.

2. The plaintiff’s case before the learned suit court was as follows:-

(i) The plaintiff is the owner of Premises No. 27 R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata 700 001 (in short, ‘the said premises’), which was previously known as Premises No. P-13, Mission Row Extension, Calcutta. The said premises had initially been purchased by one Precious Stocks & Bonds Ltd. from Life Insurance Corporation of India by a registered indenture dated May 13, 1981. The name of the said purchaser company was changed to Mody Building Limited and fresh certificate of incorporation was issued by the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal on May 28, 1986. Mody Building Limited merged with the plaintiff company pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation duly sanctioned by this Court by order dated January 24, 2000, passed in Company Petition No. 607 of 1999 and by the Delhi High Court by order dated March 15, 2000, passed in Company Petition No. 32 of 1999. Accordingly all assets, rights and entitlements of Mody Building limited, including the said premises, stood vested in the plaintiff company.

(ii) By an order of requisition dated November 9, 1949, issued under Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition & Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947, the State of West Bengal (defendant no. 1 in the suit) had requisitioned 1000 Sq. ft. area in the North Western portion of the ground floor of the said premises. The said premises was at that point of time, owned by the Hindu Family Annuity Fund Limited. In January 1950, possession of the requisitioned portion of the said premises (which portion is hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit premises’) was taken over by the State of West Bengal and the present appellant was put in physical possession thereof.

(iii) By an agreement dated June 23, 1952, made by and between the then owner of the said premises, and the State of West Bengal, the rent compensation in respect of the suit premises was fixed at Rs.404/- per month.

(iv) Under the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1955, all the assets of the said Hindu Family Annuity Fund Limited, including the suit premises, vested in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short ‘LIC’). Thereafter the rent in respect of the suit premises was paid to LIC by the present appellant.

(v) By a registered deed of conveyance dated May 13, 1981, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff purchased the said premises from LIC.

(vi) By virtue of Section 10(B) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control Act 1947 which was introduced in that Act by the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Second Amendment Act, 1986, the suit premises under requisition, automatically stood de-requisitioned after the expiry of five years from the date of coming into force of the Second Amendment Act, 1986 from March 31, 1987. Consequently, the suit premises stood released from