A court may direct a tenant in possession of commercial property to pay monthly occupational charges at current market rates during the pendency of an eviction suit, regardless of previous contractual rent, to prevent unjust enrichment and ensure equitable relief under inherent civil procedure powers.

1. Both parties are present by filing haziras.

2. Today is fixed for passing order in respect of the application under Sec-tion 151 of the CPC dated 12.08.2024 filed by the plaintiffs.

3. Perused the petition, written objection as well as written note of argu- ment and materials on record.

4. The instant application deals with the question of grant of interim occu- pational charges at market rate of rent during the pendency of the eviction suit. In order to deal with the issue in question, a brief account of the fact leading to the application is necessary.

5. The plaintiffs have filed the instant suit for eviction, recovery of posses- sion, arrears of rent, mesne profit and other reliefs.

6. The predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiffs, Tarun Kumar Guha was granted lease by Biswanath Laha in respect of the property, being Premises No.394, Jessore Road, P.S. Dum Dum, Kolkata-700055, District North 24 Par-ganas, executed on 7th July, 1978 and registered on 10th July, 1978 before the of- fice of the Additional District Registrar, Barasat, North 24 Parganas for a term of 75 years commencing from 1st July, 1978. The lease deed also conferred upon the lessee the right to sublet the premises without requiring prior consent from the lessor. Pursuant thereto, the predecessor of the plaintiffs constructed a cinema hall named “Shelley Cinema” at his own cost on a portion of the said property, described as Schedule “B”, and obtained the requisite licence from the District Magistrate, North 24 Parganas for running cinema shows. He subsequently let out the Schedule “B” premises to the defendants by an unregistered tenancy agree- ment dated 29.03.2010 for a term of 45 years, and the monthly rent being Rs.2,50,000/-. The plaintiffs have further stated that the mandatory side space and common passage of the B schedule property is being used by the plaintiffs for carrying on the business of a Dance Bar (described as ‘C’ schedule property), without the consent of the said Tarun Kumar Guha. After his death on 28.12.2013 intestate, the plaintiffs, being his legal heirs, inherited the suit property and owing to the dispute between the parties, verbally revoked the lease on 29.12.2020 and instituted the present eviction suit on 16.03.2021.

7. It is the specific contention of the plaintiffs that the defendants, even though enjoying the B schedule Cinema Hall at a prime location in the heart of the city at a meagre amount, have defaulted in payment of rent since 29.04.2014 and have stated that they are entitled to arrear rent at Rs.3,00,38,725/- along with interest. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have been deprived of the mar- ket rate on the suit property for a considerable period.

8. On the contrary, the defendants have contended that it was agreed be- tween the parties that the rate of rent payable by the defendant is Rs.35,000/- per month as token rent. The defendants, by filing an application on 02.03.2022 had prayed for depositing Rs.35,000/- on and from 01.03.2022 as the current monthly rent of the Schedule B property, which was subsequently not pressed. It is the contention of the defendants in their written objection that Tarun Kumar Guha had approached the defendants for taking over the Cinema Hall business as he had failed to continue with the same and had agreed for renovation of the busi- ness and accordingly, the Tenancy Agreement dated 19.03.2010 was entered into with the token rent of Rs.35,000/- per month to be paid during the renovation pe- riod. It is the specific allegation of the defendants that the legal heirs of Tarun Kumar Guha (plaintiffs herein) never cooperated for the purpose of renovation and reconstructing and that the plaintiffs had already received extra payment of Rs.30,26,360/- till the filing of written statement i.e. 01.12.2024. It has been stated that till date the defendants have not been able to commercially exploit the B schedule property. The defendants have further stated that even though they have inv