Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 935 (CAL)

Tara Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. ARCL Organics Ltd.

2014-09-25

DEBANGSU BASAK

body2014
JUDGMENT DEBANGSU BASAK, J. Two suits between the same parties are taken up together for hearing. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction before the learned City Civil Court at Calcutta being Title Suit No. 1583 of 1981. The plaintiff also filed a suit claiming money decree on account of mesne-profits being Suit No. 82 of 1986 before this Court. The suit being Title Suit No. 1583 of 1981 was transferred to this Hon’ble Court under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, 1865 and was renumbered as E.O.S. No. 6 of 1987. In the first suit being E.O.S. No. 6 of 1987 the plaintiff claims that, an indenture of lease dated September 29, 1965 was entered into between the parties. By such indenture of lease the plaintiff granted the defendant lease of an office space having an area of 3,851 square feet on the second floor of the premises No. 13 Camac Street, Kolkata at the monthly rent of Rs. 3,851/- for a period of 21 years commencing from January 1, 1964. The Plaintiff claims that, under the terms and conditions of such deed of lease the defendant is liable to pay all rates and taxes assessed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in respect of the demised premises and all enhancements of the occupier’s shares. The defendant paid the enhanced occupier’s shares up to March 31, 1973 and failed, neglected to pay with effect from April 1, 1973. The plaintiff claims a sum of Rs. 16,636.32p to be due and payable on account of the enhanced share of occupier’s tax for the period from April 1, 1973 to March 31, 1981 by the defendant. The plaintiff claims that, the defendant is also a defaulter of payment of monthly rent for the months of June and October 1980 and on and from January 1981. The plaintiff states that, the lease deed provides for earlier determination in the event the enhanced Municipal rates and taxes are not paid and there is default in payment of rent. The defendant committed defaults in payment of enhanced municipal rents and taxes. Consequently the plaintiff issued a notice dated April 21, 1981 through its advocate, determining the lease and calling upon the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver possession of the demised premises on the expiry of the last day of May, 1981. The defendant committed defaults in payment of enhanced municipal rents and taxes. Consequently the plaintiff issued a notice dated April 21, 1981 through its advocate, determining the lease and calling upon the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver possession of the demised premises on the expiry of the last day of May, 1981. During the pendency of E.O.S. No. 6 of the 1987 the lease dated September 29, 1965 expired by efflux of time. The plaint was amended by incorporating the fact of expiry of lease by efflux of time. The plaint was also amended to reflect the contentions of the plaintiff that, the defendant had carried out additions and alterations in the demised premises without the consent of the plaintiff and in breach of the terms and conditions of the lease. The defendant had allegedly damaged the outer wall. The defendant had allegedly sub-let portions of the demised premises in breach of the terms and conditions of the deed of lease. The defendant has filed a written statement. After the amendment of the plaint, the defendant filed an additional written statement. The defendant claims that, it paid the enhanced share of the corporation tax till March 31, 1973. It requested the plaintiff to submit certificate from the corporation regarding payment of the enhanced tax for the occupier share. Since the plaintiff did not produce any valid receipt of payment of corporation tax, the defendant claims that, it is not liable to pay the same. On the question of default of payment of rent, the defendant claims that, the rent for the period of June to December 1980 was paid to the plaintiff by way cheques issued on diverse dates. The plaintiff did not present the same within the period of validity of such cheques. The defendant has deposited a sum of Rs. 16,636.32p in Court to the credit of the plaintiff. The defendant denies committing any breach of the terms and conditions of the lease deed. The defendant claims not to have received the notice to quit dated April 21, 1981. The defendant claims that it is a monthly tenant and that the tenancy is protected under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. According to the defendant, no ground for eviction as provided under Section 13(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 exists for evicting the defendant. The defendant claims that it is a monthly tenant and that the tenancy is protected under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. According to the defendant, no ground for eviction as provided under Section 13(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 exists for evicting the defendant. The defendant claims that, the ground of addition and alteration is not mentioned in the notice to quit. E.O.S. No. 6 of 1987 was initially filed before the learned City Civil Court at Kolkata as Title Suit No. 1583 of 1981. The suit was decreed ex parte on July 27, 1983. The ex parte decree was recalled on September 19, 1983 on payment of a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh by the defendant on account of arrears of rent and municipal taxes. The defendant claims adjustment for the sum of Rs. 1 Lakh that it has paid in terms of the said order dated September 19, 1983. The second Suit being C.S. No. 82 of 1986 is a suit for mesne profits. In this suit the plaintiff claims that, the defendant has failed and neglected to pay rent for the months of June and October, 1980 and on and from January, 1981. The plaintiff claims that the lease was validly determined by the notice to quit dated April 21, 1981. The plaintiff claims that, the defendant is liable to mesne profits at the rate claimed by it. In its written statement the defendant claims that, it is protected under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It reiterates its defence as to non-payment of rents as that of the earlier suit. Five issues were pressed at the hearing of the suit. These five issues are as follows:- (1) Whether the defendant is a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and is entitled to have the protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 as pleaded in paragraphs 3 and 14 of the written statement? (2) Whether the plaintiff refused to accept the rent and service charge tendered by the defendant as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the written statement? (3) Has the defendant committed breach and/or violation of the terms of the lease dated 29th September, 1965 with effect from 1964 as alleged in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint? (2) Whether the plaintiff refused to accept the rent and service charge tendered by the defendant as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the written statement? (3) Has the defendant committed breach and/or violation of the terms of the lease dated 29th September, 1965 with effect from 1964 as alleged in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint? (4) Whether the termination of the lease by notice dated 21st April, 1981 is bad as pleaded in paragraph 8 of the written statement? (5) Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action to file the suit and whether the suit is otherwise maintainable? The parties disclosed various documents at the trial. The plaintiff produced two witnesses in its support. The defendant gave evidence through one witness. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that, the lease deed dated September 29, 1965 being Exhibit "J" is an admitted document. Exhibit "J" is a registered deed of lease relating to the suit premises. He relies upon various clauses of Exhibit "J" and submits that, the defendant committed breach of the terms and conditions of Exhibit "J." He submits that, the defendant defaulted in payment of its share of taxes on and from April 1, 1971. The defendant defaulted in payment of rent and service charges for the months of June 1980 and October 1980 and on and from January 1981. The defendant carried out various additions and alterations at the demised premises without the consent of the plaintiff. By reasons of such additions and alterations, the main outer wall of the demised premises was damaged. He refers Exhibit "L" and "M" in this regard. He contends that, the defendant has sub-let the demised premises to various others entities and refers to Exhibits "C" to "I" in this regard. He refers to the eviction notice dated April 21, 1981 being Exhibit "A" and submits that, the defendant has duly received the same. He submits that, in spite of such notice the defendant has failed and neglected to vacate the premises. He submits that, during the pendency of the first suit the lease expired by efflux of time on December 31, 1984 and as such plaint was amended. With regard to the second suit he submits that, the claim of the plaintiff for mesne profits stands substantiated by the report of M/s. Talbot and Company being Exhibit "N." He refers to the oral testimony of Mr. With regard to the second suit he submits that, the claim of the plaintiff for mesne profits stands substantiated by the report of M/s. Talbot and Company being Exhibit "N." He refers to the oral testimony of Mr. S.L. Mitra of M/s. Talbot and Company. With regard to the stand of the defendant in the second suit, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that, the defendant has admitted the deed of lease. Consequently, according to him, the various clauses of the lease deed are binding on the defendant. He submits that, the stand of the defendant that, the tenancy of the defendant is protected under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 has no basis. Reliance of the defendant on Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956, according to him is misplaced as the lease is for commercial purpose and not in respect of a residential purpose. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that, the lease deed dated September 29, 1965 records that, it will commence from an anterior date i.e. from January 1, 1964. Possession of the tenancy premises was given to the defendant in September 1965. The defendant has paid rent on and from September 1965 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not claiming payment of rent for the period from January, 1964 till September, 1965. According to him no tenancy between the parties was executed for this period of time. Tenancy and/or lease therefore, according to him commenced on and from September 1965. The lease expired by efflux of time on the submission of plaintiff on December 31, 1984. Therefore, according to him lease was not for the period of 21 years. Once that is established, according to him, the relationship between the parties will be governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 in view of the Section 3 thereof. In support of this contention he relies on Baneswar Pal vs. Smt. Nirmala Jyoti, All India Reporter 1979 Calcutta 396, Dipak Sen & Another vs. Smt. Lakxhmi Rani Das, 2000 Volume 1 Calcutta High Court Notes 365 and Makali Engg. Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dalhousie Properties Limited, 2006 Volume 1 Calcutta High Court Notes 419. In support of this contention he relies on Baneswar Pal vs. Smt. Nirmala Jyoti, All India Reporter 1979 Calcutta 396, Dipak Sen & Another vs. Smt. Lakxhmi Rani Das, 2000 Volume 1 Calcutta High Court Notes 365 and Makali Engg. Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dalhousie Properties Limited, 2006 Volume 1 Calcutta High Court Notes 419. In his usual fairness he refers to the judgement reported at Ranjit Kumar Dutta vs. Tapan Kumar Shaw & Another, All India Reporter 1997 Calcutta 278 on the issue as to the period of lease. In reply the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that, the lease was for a commercial purpose. Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 is not attracted as the lease in the instant case is not for a residential purpose. The lease deed dated September 29, 1965 being Exhibit "J" is admitted. The nature and duration of the lease deed requires consideration, as parties join issue on this aspect. Exhibit "J" being the deed of lease is dated September 29, 1965. The execution of the deed of lease on this date is not disputed. The defendant refers to the clause in the deed of lease which specifies that the lease will commence from January 1, 1964. The defendant claims to come into possession of the demised premises in September, 1965. There is not material on record to show that, the plaintiff received rent for the month of January, 1964 till September, 1965. Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 provides that, certain provisions of the Act of 1956 will not apply to the leases specified therein. Section 3 of the Act of 1956 is as follows:- "3. Certain provisions of the Act not to apply to certain leases – (1) The provisions relation to rent and the provisions of sections 31 and 36 shall apply to any premises held under a lease for residential purpose of the lessee himself and registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908), where – (a) Such lease has been entered into on or after the 1st December 1948. (b) Such lease is for a period of not more than 20 years, and save as aforesaid nothing in this Act shall apply to any premises held under a lease for a period of not less than 15 years. (b) Such lease is for a period of not more than 20 years, and save as aforesaid nothing in this Act shall apply to any premises held under a lease for a period of not less than 15 years. (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sub-section (1), but subject to sub-section (3) of section 1, this Act shall apply to all premises held under a lease which has been entered into after the commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Ordinance 1965: Provided that if any such lease as for a period of not less than 20 years and the period limited by such lease is not expressed to be terminable before its expiration at the option either of the landlord or of the tenant, nothing in this Act, other than the provisions relating to rent and the provisions of sections 31 and 36, shall apply to any premises held under such lease." So far as sub-section (1) of Section 3 is concerned, it provides for applicability of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 in the manner laid down therein in respect of a registered lease for a residential purpose. Exhibit "J" is duly registered. The lessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The lease deed being Exhibit "J" provides that, the lessee shall use the demised premises for its business purpose. The lease is, therefore, for a commercial purpose. The defendant relies upon sub-section (2) of the Section 3 of the Act of 1956. Exhibit "J" being the registered deed of lease was executed on September 29, 1965 before commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Ordinance 1965. Sub-section (2) of the Section 3 of the Act of 1956 provides that, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 shall apply to all premises held under a lease entered into before the commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Ordinance, 1956, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in Section 3(1), but subject to Section 1(3). Sub-section (2) of the Section 3 of the Act of 1956 provides that, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 shall apply to all premises held under a lease entered into before the commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Ordinance, 1956, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in Section 3(1), but subject to Section 1(3). Subsection (2) of the Section 3 of the Act of 1956 provides that, if the lease is for a period of not less than 20 years period and such lease is not expressed to be terminable before its expiry at the option either of the land lord or of the tenant, West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 will apply other than the provisions relating to rent and Sections 31 and 36 of the Act of 1956. The defendant claims that, the proviso of sub-section (2) of the Section 3 is not applicable since the lease is for a period of less than 20 years and the period limited by the lease is expressed to be terminable before its expiry at the option either of the landlord or the tenant. In the instant case Exhibit "J" is an admitted document. The registered lease deed being Exhibit "J" provides that, the period of lease will be for a period of 21 years commencing from January 1, 1964 and will expire on December 31, 1984. The period of lease is, therefore, 21 years. The defendant contends that, the lease was actually entered into on September 29, 1965 and an anterior date was given for the purpose of commencement of the lease. The actual period of the lease was less than 21 years. A statement in the deed of lease to the effect that, the lease will commence from an anterior date to the actual commencement of the lease will not make the deed of lease commence from the anterior date. Buneswar Pal (supra) is of the view that, ordinarily a lease may commence either simultaneously with the execution of the deed of lease or at a future date. Buneswar Pal (supra) is of the view that, ordinarily a lease may commence either simultaneously with the execution of the deed of lease or at a future date. In case where the lease is expressed to commence from a date anterior to the date of execution of the lease such anterior date would be material only for the purpose of computation of the period of lease when it is one for a term of years but the interest of the lessee under the deed cannot be said to have begun from that anterior date. It will commence from the date of the execution of the lease and not from the anterior date from which the lease is expressed to commence. Dipak Sen (supra) found on facts that, the registered deed was not for the period of 21 years. It goes on say that if the duration of the lease was for the period of 21 years it could be successfully argued that, the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 except Sections 31 and 36 would not be applicable. Ranjit Kumar Dutta (supra) considers the lease for 15 years with an option to renew for another 15 years. In the facts of that case it is held that, the lease was for 30 years. Makali Engg. Works (supra) explains Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It says in paragraphs 17, 18 and 20 that:- "17. Relationship between a lessor and a lessee is governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The Legislature of various State however with a view of granting protection to the tenants enacted various Rent Control Legislations. West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, hereinafter referred to a as the said Act, is one of such legislations, which governs the field. The said Act being a Special Statute undoubtedly would prevail over the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act which is a general stature. 18. The said Act having been enacted for the benefit of the tenants must be interpreted in such a manner so as to give effect to the legislative intent and the Court shall avoid such construction which would destroy such object and would give leverage in the minds of the landlords to come out of the provisions thereof. 20. 18. The said Act having been enacted for the benefit of the tenants must be interpreted in such a manner so as to give effect to the legislative intent and the Court shall avoid such construction which would destroy such object and would give leverage in the minds of the landlords to come out of the provisions thereof. 20. Sub-Section (1) therefore which contains a non-obstante clause in no uncertain terms states that the said Act shall apply to all premises held under lease. Proviso appended thereto, however, seeks to curve out an exception to the effect that the said Act other than the provisions contained in sections 31 and 36 shall apply if such lease is for a period of not less than 20 years and the period limited by such lease is not expressed to be terminable before its expiration at the option either of the landlord or of the tenant." The period of the lease being Exhibit "J" requires consideration. The registered deed of lease being Exhibit "J" was executed in September 29, 1965 with the deed stating that it commenced from January 1, 1964. In cases where a lease is expressed to commence from a date anterior to the date of execution of the lease, such anterior date will be material only for the purpose of computation of the period of lease. This is the view of Baneswar Pal (supra). So for the purpose computation of the period of lease anterior date will be taken into consideration when the commencement of the lease is stated to be a date anterior to the date of execution of the lease. In the instant case the lease deed is executed on September 29, 1965 with effect from January 1, 1964 and expiring on December 31, 1984. So the period of lease will be 21 years. The lease deed contains a clause for earlier determination. In fact, the plaintiff as the lessor did determine the lease prior to its expiry by efflux of time. In view of the provisions of the Section 3(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, since the period limited by the deed of lease is expressed to be terminable before its expiry at the option of the lessee all the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 will apply except provisions relating to rent and Sections 31 and 36 thereof. The defendant did not accept the prior determination. The defendant has however accepted the registered deed of lease dated September 29, 1965 being Exhibit "J." The defendant entered into possession of the demised premises by virtue of Exhibit "J." The defendant accepted all the terms and conditions specified therein and had acted thereon. The defendant never repudiated Exhibit "J" to claim monthly tenancy under the plaintiff. Exhibit "J" is for a fixed term. The defendant allowed Exhibit "J" to run its full term. The lease and conditions contained therein come to an end with the expiry of the terms of the lease being Exhibit "J." The defendant cannot be allowed to take the shelter under the prior determination clause of Exhibit "J" to come under the purview of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It would be improper to allow the defendant to change its stand for the purpose of the two suits and take shelter of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. West Bengal Tenancy Act, 1956 allows eviction of a tenant under the circumstances enumerated under Section 13 thereof. Addition and alteration to the tenancy premises without the consent of the landlord, sub-letting without consent of the landlord are the grounds for eviction of a tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The lease deed also provides for eviction on the ground of default of payment of rent and municipal rates and taxes, apart from addition and alteration without the consent of the landlord and sub-letting without the consent of the landlord. The plaintiff issued a notice to quit through its Advocates letter dated April 21, 1981 being Exhibit "A." By such notice the defendant was called upon to vacate the suit premises with the expiry of the last date of May 1981 as the defendant had failed and neglected to comply with the terms and conditions of the lease deed dated September 29, 1965. This letter dated April 21, 1981 was sent under certificate of posting as well as by hand and under registered post with acknowledgement due card. The notice was posted by certificate of posting on April 26, 1981. The letter was delivered by hand and received by the defendant on April 27, 1981. The defendant received the registered post on April 27, 1981. The notice was posted by certificate of posting on April 26, 1981. The letter was delivered by hand and received by the defendant on April 27, 1981. The defendant received the registered post on April 27, 1981. All of these facts appear from Exhibit "A." The defendant, therefore, received the notice to quit dated April 21, 1981 on April 27, 1981. The defendant had more than a month’s notice to quit, vacate and make over possession of the demised premises of the plaintiff. The notice being part of Exhibit "A" is a valid notice to quit. So far as the ground of default of payment of rent is concerned the defendant acknowledges that, rent for the months of June and October, 1980 and on and from the month of January 1981 remains unpaid. The explanation of the defendant is that the cheques made over by the defendant to the plaintiff were not presented within the validity period of those cheques. The fact remains that, the plaintiff did not receive rent for the aforesaid period. The defendant is, therefore, a defaulter in payment of rent. The occupier’s share of municipal taxes also remains unpaid by the defendant with effect from April 1, 1973 till March 31, 1981. The defence of the defendant that the plaintiff has failed to produce receipt of payment of such tax from the municipal corporation and, therefore, the defendant is not liable to pay does not appeal to me. Firstly, the liability to pay is admitted by the defendant. The obligation to pay by the defendant is not dependent upon the plaintiff producing receipt of payment from the municipal corporation. Rather the liability arises out of statute as well as out of Exhibit "J." The defendant is liable to pay the occupiers share of the municipal rates and taxes for the entire period it remains in occupation of the suit premises. So far as the ground of sub-letting is concerned, I find that different legal entities are at the same premises as would appear from Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I. The defendant does not claim and did not establish that, all the legal entities are under the single management as that of the defendant. The subletting of the premises is, therefore established. The subletting of the premises is, therefore established. So far as additions and alterations at the suit premises without the consent of the plaintiff is concerned, pursuant to an Order dated June 18, 1990 the Receiver went to the suit premises and found masonry work to be carried out by the defendant at the suit premises. The minutes of the Receiver is marked as Exhibit "M." Such addition and alteration was not done with the consent of the plaintiff. The defendant failed to establish that the masonry work was done with the consent of the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendant is guilty of carrying out addition and alteration at the premises without the consent of the plaintiff. The facts, therefore, establish that, the defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent, has sub-let the suit premises without the consent of the landlord and had carried out addition and alteration at the suit premises without the consent of the landlord. Grounds for eviction of the defendant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 have been established also. In such circumstances issues raised are answered is follows:- 1. The defendant having accepted the lease dated September 29, 1965, enjoyed its full term, cannot be allowed to resile of its declared position and seek protection of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 2. The Defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent for the months of June and October, 1980 and on and from the months of January, 1981. The defendant is also liable to pay the occupier’s share of municipal rates and taxes for the entire period it remains in occupation of the suit premises to the defendant. 3. The defendant committed breach of the lease deed dated September 29, 1965. It has made additions and alterations without the consent of the plaintiff and has sub let without the consent of the plaintiff. 4. The notice of quit dated April 21, 1981 is valid and was duly received by the defendant. 5. Plaint discloses cause of action and the suit is maintainable. In view of the discussion herein, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for eviction in terms of prayer (a) of Title Suit No. 1583 of 1981 subsequently numbered as E.O.S. No. 6 of 1987. C.S. No. 82 of 1986 is for mesne profit and other money claims that the plaintiff has against the defendant. In view of the discussion herein, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for eviction in terms of prayer (a) of Title Suit No. 1583 of 1981 subsequently numbered as E.O.S. No. 6 of 1987. C.S. No. 82 of 1986 is for mesne profit and other money claims that the plaintiff has against the defendant. The defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent for the months of June and October 1980 and on and from the month of January 1981 till the defendant started depositing occupation charges in terms of orders of Court. The plaintiff is entitled to interest on the arrears of rent. Considering that, the lease in question is for a commercial purpose, it can be safely inferred that the transaction between the parties is commercial in nature. In such circumstances it will be appropriate to award interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the arrears of the monthly rent from the date of default until realization. The plaintiff will be entitled to a decree for the same. In my view, the arrears of rent payable by the defendant to the plaintiff require further quantification and/or calculation. For such purpose, in my view, it would be in the interest of justice, a Special Referee is appointed to undertake such exercise. Appointment of a Special Referee is also necessary for the purpose of quantification of the mesne profit receivable by the plaintiff from the defendant. The defendant continues to remain in occupation of the suit premises. The plaintiff had adduced evidence for the mesne profit. It has relied upon a valuer report prepared by a valuer as well as the oral testimony of the valuer. Exhibit "N" is the report of the valuer and is dated October 5, 2007. Exhibit "N" speaks of fair rental value on and from the period of May 1, 1981 till September 2007. The defendant continues to remain in occupation after September 2007 at the suit premises. The contents of the valuer report being Exhibit "N" is not disputed. At least there is not material on record confronting or disputing the calculation of the fair rent as done in Exhibit "N." The plaintiff will, therefore, be entitled to occupation charges from the defendant at the rate or Rs. 51,200/- per month on and from May 1, 1981 to April 30, 1984, at the rate of Rs. At least there is not material on record confronting or disputing the calculation of the fair rent as done in Exhibit "N." The plaintiff will, therefore, be entitled to occupation charges from the defendant at the rate or Rs. 51,200/- per month on and from May 1, 1981 to April 30, 1984, at the rate of Rs. 66,699/- per month for the period from May 1, 1984 to April 30, 1987, at the rate of Rs. 86,725/- per month on and from May 1, 1987 till April 30, 1990, at the rate of Rs. 1,25,158/- per month for the period from May 1, 1990 till April 30, 1993, at the rate of Rs. 1,62,705/- per month on and from May 1, 1993 to April 30, 1996, at the rate of Rs. 1,73,295/- per month on and from May, 1, 1996 till April 30, 1999, at the rate of Rs. 2,25,284/- per month for the period from May 1, 1999 till April 30, 2002, at the rate of Rs. 2,85,937/- per month from May 1, 2002 to April 30, 2005, at the rate of Rs. 3,65,845/- per month from May 1, 2005 till August 31, 2007 and at the rate of Rs. 4,49,989/- per month on and from September 1, 2007 till September 30, 2007. The Special Referee appointed herein will quantify the occupation charges receivable by the plaintiff for the period from April 1, 2010 till receipt of vacant possession from the defendant. The plaintiff will be entitled to the aforesaid occupation charges together with interest calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on and from the respective due dates of such occupation charges until receipt thereof. For the purpose of calculating the occupation charges for the period from October 1, 2007 until receipt of vacant possession of the suit premises from the defendant, Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Advocate is appointed as the Special Referee. He will be entitled to a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff at the first instance. The plaintiff will be entitled to at the costs incurred by the plaintiff for the purpose of conduct of the proceedings by the Special Referee as well as the remuneration paid to the Special Referee and will be entitled to realize the same from the defendant. 50,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff at the first instance. The plaintiff will be entitled to at the costs incurred by the plaintiff for the purpose of conduct of the proceedings by the Special Referee as well as the remuneration paid to the Special Referee and will be entitled to realize the same from the defendant. The Special Referee will proceed expeditiously as possible in computing the mesne profit as well as implementing the other directions given herein. He will compute the mesne profit for the period on and from October 1, 2007 until receipt of vacant possession of the demised premises by the plaintiff. He will also determine the arrears of occupied share of municipal rates and taxes not paid by the defendant as also arrears of municipal rent, if any, not paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. The parties will be entitled to adduce evidence in respect of their respective claims before the Special Referee. The defendant in particular will be entitled to adduce evidence before the Special Referee of the amounts, if any, paid by the defendant to the plaintiff or to the municipal authorities. The Special Referee will take that into consideration in his report. The parties will co-operate with the Special Referee. The parties as well as the Special Referee will act upon the server copy being communicated to him by any of the Advocates for the parties. The Special Referee will prepare and submit his report on the next date of hearing of C.S. No. 82 of 1986. C.S. No. 82 of 1986 is decreed in part as aforesaid. C.S. No. 82 of 1986 will appear in the monthly list of January 2015 for the purpose of considering the report of the Special Referee. The plaintiff will be entitled to cost of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of E.O.S. No. 6 of 1987 against the defendant. The plaintiff will be entitled to a further sum of Rs. 50,000/-as cost assessed upto date for C.S. No. 82 of 1986 as against the defendant. The department is directed to draw up and complete the decree in the two suits as expeditiously as possible.