NRIPENDRA NARAYAN GHOSH Vs. DR. CHANDRA SHEKHER MURMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.N. Ghosh, learned counsel, representing the petitioner/plaintiff/landlord and also Mr. Golam Mustafa, learned counsel representing the opposite party, being assisted by Mr. Subir Sabui.

(2.) Upon hearing both sides and perusing the materials on record it reveals that the petitioner filed a Title Suit in the year 2014 praying for eviction and khas possession of the suit premises lying in the occupation of the opposite party in the capacity of licencee. In the said suit also apart from injunction other reliefs were sought for to which the petitioner would be entitled under the law. The Court has been apprised of the fact that the cross-examination to the witness of the petitioner has been going on before learned Trial Court. Amidst the proceeding the petitioner filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking direction upon the opposite party/defendant/occupant of the suit premises to pay directly to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month commencing from March 2014 for illegal and wrongful occupation of the suit premises. Learned Trial Court rejected such application by the impugned order dated 2nd February, 2016 while the stage was for hearing of the temporary injunction, which has been over by this time in view of the present stage of the suit, as indicated above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a decision of a coordinate bench of this Court delivered in the case of Kanak Projects Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., reported in 2014(1) CLJ (Cal) 337, criticized the impugned order and submitted that since there is no specific defence in the written statement save and except denial, to protect and ensure of the interest of the landlord the opposite party should be directed to deposit the amount as sought for as occupational charges.