IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Before:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya C.O. 359 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 Khaitan Consultants Ltd.

VS.

Daimanti Devi & Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mainak Bose….Sr. Adv.

Mr. Khushi Gupta ….. advocates For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sandipan Das …. advocate Heard on : 25.06.2025 & 02.07.2025 Judgment on : 02.07.2025 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order being No. 143 dated January 14, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge 5^th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit no. 121 of 2003 E.

2. By the order impugned the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner seeking a direction upon the opposite parties to make payment of occupation charges stood rejected.

3. Petitioner herein filed a suit for eviction on the grounds referred to under various clauses of Subsection 1 of Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (for short “1997 Act”). The petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction upon the defendant no. 1(a) to pay arrear occupational charges on and from 1^st December, 2003 till September 2024 and for a further direction upon the defendants to continue to make payment of occupational charges till the delivery of possession. In the said application the petitioner has stated that the suit property is located at the central business district of the city of Kolkata and is located opposite the High Court at Calcutta. The present letting out value of the suit property, according to the petitioner, in a conservative estimate would be Rs. 1000/- per sq. ft. The learned Trial Judge rejected the application seeking direction upon the opposite party to pay occupation charges.

4. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has approached this Court.

5. Mr. Bose, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the opposite parties are enjoying the suit property and are exploiting the same for commercial purpose. He submitted that the contractual rate of rent is very low and since the opposite parties are in possession of the suit property and exploiting the same for commercial purpose, the opposite party should be directed to pay occupational charges at the current market rate. He further contended that the rate of occupation charges claimed by the petitioner in the said application is a reasonable one and the same cannot be said to an exorbitant amount taking into consideration the fact that the suit property is situated in the prime location of the city of Kolkata. Mr. Bose learned Senior advocate placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar HUF vs. Ashwin Bhanulal Desai reported at (2024) 8 SCC 668 in support of his contention that even prior to the passing of a decree for eviction, a direction for payment of occupation charges can be passed. He also placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Ahmad and Another vs. Atma Ram Chauhan and Others reported at (2011) 7 SCC 755 in support of his contention that the landlords are entitled to reasonable rent akin to market rent.

6. Mr. Das learned advocate appearing for the opposite party seriously disputed the contentions of Mr. Bose. He submitted that there is no provision in the 1997 Act for payment of occupation charges at the current market rate for continuing in possession of the tenanted premises during the pendency of the eviction suit. He further contended that the PW1 was last cross examined on 1^st October, 2018 and the petitioner has taken several adjournments before the learned Trial Judge. He submitted that the only object behind filing the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to enhance the rent in the name of