Mr. Abhijit Ray Mr. Santu Nandy … for the petitioner Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya Mr. Anirban Saha Roy … for the opposite parties The present civil revisional application has been preferred challenging the order No. 44 dated 12.02.2025 and order No. 46 dated 09.04.2025 passed by the learned 4^th Bench Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 49 of 2024.

Vide the said order under revision, it appears that the learned trial judge directed payment of occupational charge of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. on certain conditions.

It is submitted by the defendant/tenant/petitioner herein that the plaintiff/land owner has not specified the area of the premises in the suit/case and without such specification, the said assessment of occupational charge by the learned trial judge is erroneous and against the principle of natural justice.

The prayer of the petitioner herein for an inspection of the premises was rejected by the learned trial judge vide its order dated 09.04.2025 which of course is not under challenge in the present civil revisional application.

It appears from the order under challenge that admittedly the plaintiff has not mentioned the area of the premises in question in the suit a