Sahidullah Munshi, J. - (1.) This is a suit claiming for a decree for khas possession of an area mentioned and described in Schedule 'A' to the plaint and also for a decree for Rs.85,23,362.36/- (Rupees Eighty Five Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Two and Thirty Six Paisa) only, as pleaded in paragraph 24 of the plaint and also for a decree for mesne profit and/or occupation charges at the rate of Rs.1,36,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Six Thousand) only, per month from December, 2001 until delivery of possession, alternatively an enquiry into the mesne profit/damages for wrongful occupation and possession by the defendants and a decree be passed for such sum as may be found due and payable upon such enquiry, interim interest, interest upon judgment, Receiver, injunction, cost and further or other reliefs. The plaint was presented and admitted on 7th February, 2001. Summons were issued and served upon the defendants and they filed written statement on 30th August, 2001 verified by one Sandip Ghosh, Land Acquisition Collector.
(2.) The instant suit and the claims made thereunder relates to the requisition, de-requisition and acquisition of premises no.2, Church Lane, Calcutta 700001. The plaintiff's case is based on the following fact : i) On February 9, 1972, an order being no.9/72, the defendant no.2 requisitioned approximately 4874 Sq.ft. on the Northern portion of the 2nd floor of premises no.2, Church Lane, Calcutta - 700001 under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 and in support thereof, the plaintiff has filed a document being PD-2 of the Judge's Brief of Documents which is marked Exhibit 'C'. ii) On February 10, 1972, the defendant no.1 issued a possession certificate in favour of Home (E&E) Department in respect of the said premises and in support thereof, the plaintiff has relied on a document being DD-1 at page 1 of the defendants' documents in the Judge's Brief which was marked as Exhibit '1'. iii) On March 22, 1974, by an indenture of lease the lessors therein granted in favour of Oswal Holdings, of which the plaintiff claimed to be the proprietor granted lease for a period of ninety nine years from April 1, 1974 to March 31, 2073 in respect of the premises no.2, Church Lane, Calcutta 700001 and in support thereof, document being PD-1 at pages 1to 24 of the Judge's Brief of Documents has been relied on by the plaintiff. iv) On February 26, 1985, an order was issued whereby a portion of the requisitioned property being 1581 Sq.ft. out of 3458 Sq.ft. was de-requisitioned by the defendants and in support thereof, the plaintiff relied on a document being PD-6 at page 31 of the Judge's Brief of Documents and which was marked as Exhibit 'G'. v) On March 8, 1985, possession in respect of the said 1581 Sq.ft. was handed over to the plaintiff by way of restoration certificate. The defendant no.1 retained with it 1877 Sq.ft. (3458 Sq.ft. 1581 Sq.ft.) and in support thereof, the plaintiff relied on a document being DD-3 (defendants' document) at page 3. vi) On July 2, 1987, the plaintiff, by a letter, offered to exchange a portion of the retained requisitioned property and in support thereof, the plaintiff relied on a document being PD-7 at page 32 of the Judge's Brief of Documents which was marked as Exhibit 'H'. vii)On December, 16, 1987, an agreement which was prepared and sent to the plaintiff by the defendants, was completed and signed by the plaintiff and forwarded the same to the defendant for necessary action. In support thereof, the plaintiff has relied on a document being PD-10 at pages 38 to 40 of the Judge's Brief of Documents which was marked as Exhibit 'K'. viii) On December 16, 1987, pursuant to an offer from the defendant to provide an alternative accommodation and the newly constructed annexed building in the suit premises in exchange of 1877 Sq.ft., still retained by the defendant no.1, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2. The defendant agreed to derequisition the said retained requisitioned area of 1877 Sq.ft. and simultaneously, to requisition 1600 Sq.ft. on third floor of the newly constructed annexed building at the suit premises. ix) On December 18, 1987, a release order being no.9/72 was issued and by virtue thereof, the defendant no.2 de-requisitioned the said 1855 sq.ft. on second floor of the said premises and directed the plaintiff to take possession of the same on December 18, 1987 in support thereof, the plaintiff has relied on a document being DD-4 at page 4 of the defendants' documents being marked as Exhibit '4'. x) On December 18, 1987, a requisition order being no.3/87 was issued by the defendant no.2 and requisitioned an area of 1600 Sq.ft. on the third floor of the newly constructed building at 2, Church Lane, Calcutta 700001 and directed the defendant no.1 to take over possession of the said portion of the said building being the suit property, so requisitioned. xi) On December 24, 1987, the defendant no.1 issued two orders, the first being order no.9/72 directing release of 1855 Sq.ft. being portion retained in the second floor of the said premises and other being order no.3/87 thereby requisitioning one hall on the third floor measuring about 1600 Sq.ft. approximately in the newly constructed annexed building of the said premises under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947. Such new space in the new building was requisitioned on the basis that the said space was in lieu of 1855 Sq.ft. of the retained portion in the second floor of the old building. The plaintiff simultaneously took possession of the derequisitioned space in the old building and handed over the space in the new building measuring about 1600 Sq.ft and in support thereof, the plaintiff relied on a document being PD-12 at pages 41, 42 and 43 of the Judge's Brief of Documents which has been marked as Exhibit 'M'. xii)On December 24, 1987, the defendant no.1 issued possession certificate in respect of an area of 1600 Sq.ft. in the newly constructed annexed building on third floor of premises no.2, Church Lane, Calcutta 700001 and in support thereof, the plaintiff relies on a document being DD-8 at page 8 of the defendants' documents which has been marked as Exhibit '8'. xiii) On April 9, 1991, by an order of release being no.9/72, the defendant no.2 de-requisitioned the remaining portion measuring about 22 Sq.ft. on the second floor of the suit premises which is under occupation of the Public Undertakings Department and directed the plaintiff to take necessary possession of the same and in support thereof, the plaintiff relies on defendants' document being DD-5 which has been marked as Exhibit '5'. xiv) On April 16, 1991, the possession of the balance 22 Sq.ft. (1877 Sq.ft. 1855 Sq.ft.) area in the second floor of the said premises was handed over to the plaintiff by way of a restoration certificate and in support thereof, the plaintiff relied on the defendants' document being DD-1 at page 6 and which was admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit '6'. xv)On August 24, 1998, a writ petition being W.P. No.1040 of 1997 was filed by the plaintiff contending, inter alia, that in view of the order of requisition dated 9th February, 1972 and terms of provisions of Sections 10A and 10B of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Second Amendment) Act, 1986, which came into force on March 31, 1987, the defendant is bound and obliged to de-requisition the requisitioned portion of the suit property on or before the expiry of the period of 25 years from the date of requisition, which period expired on February 9, 1997 and the defendants also were bound and liable to derequisition the area of 1600 Sq.ft. on the third floor of the annexed building and hand back possession to the plaintiff and, accordingly, prayed for de-requisition of the suit premises. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties by the order dated August 24, 1998, the Hon'ble Justice Barin Ghosh (as His Lordship then was) was pleased to hold that the defendants were, in law, bound to de-requisition the suit property as the requisition order dated December 24, 1987 was a continuation of the earlier requisition order dated February 9, 1972 and thereby directed the defendant to derequisition the said property and in support thereof, the plaintiff relied on a document being PD-15 at pages 47 to 54 being Exhibit 'P'. xvi) On September 25, 1998, a notification dated September 4, 1998 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the said portion on the third floor of the annexed building of the suit premises and the same was published in the official gazette. The plaintiff has relied on a document being PD-16 which has been marked as Exhibit 'Q' and plaintiff has also relied on a document being DD9 which is marked as Exhibit '9'. xvii) On May 24, 1999, a notification dated May 21, 1999 was issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the said portion on the third floor of annexed building of the suit premises and the same was published in the official gazette. The plaintiff relied on a document being PD-17 at pages 57-58 of the Judge's Brief of Documents which has been marked as Exhibit 'R'. Another document being DD-10 has also been relied on by the plaintiff and marked Exhibit '10'. xviii) On July 6, 2001, an award was made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same being relied on by the defendant as their document no.DD-13 has been exhibited as Exhibit '12'. xix) On December 20, 2001, a possession certificate was issued by the defendants after taking formal possession from the plaintiff of the suit property on the third floor of the annexed building acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The plaintiff relied on a document placed by the defendant being DD-14 and marked as Exhibit '13'.
(3.) The defendants have disputed the plaint case by filing written statement. On consideration of the pleadings in the plaint and the written statement and after hearing the submissions made by the parties in the suit, by an order dated 13th November, 2017, following issues were framed: 1) Is the plaintiff entitled to get occupation charges for alleged wrongful occupation of an area of 1600 sq.ft. by the defendant no.1 for the period from 9th February, 1997 to 19th December, 2001 or for any other period and if so whether the occupation charge should be at the rate of Rs.1,36,000/- per month or any other prevailing market rate. 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get pre-interest, pendente lite interest and interest on judgment at the rate of 18 per cent per annum or at any other rate. 3) To what other relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled. Since all the issues are interrelated and centers round issue no.1, I propose to dispose of all the issues together.;