JUDGMENT : (Krishna Rao, J.) 1. The plaintiff has filed the instant application under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rule of this Court praying for summary judgment for a sum of Rs. 5,47,70,672.40/-together with an interest @ of 18% per annum from July 2016 till January 2020. 2. The plaintiff has filed suit against the defendant praying for the following reliefs : “a) Decree for Rs. 5,47,70,672.40p; b) Decree for Rs. 3,53,27,170/-on account of interest from July 1, 2016 to January 31, 2020 as pleaded in paragraph 27 hereof; c) Interest on judgment and other reliefs.” 3. Initially a lease deed was entered between The Model Manufacturing Company Limited and the Income Tax department on 3rd June, 1967 for a period of three years. Even after the expiry of the period of three years, no further lease was entered between the parties but the Income Tax department had continued with the possession of the said premises as a monthly tenant but the monthly rent was not revised. In between 10th July, 1972 and 13th June, 1985, the Central Public Works Department had issued various memorandums for enhancement of rent with respect of various properties taken on rent by the Central Government. Inspite of several requests and demands made by the company, the defendants have not come forward to revise the monthly rent. In the month of December, 1995, the defendant no. 2 had informed the company regarding sanction of enhancement of the monthly rent @ of Rs. 9.02 per sq. ft. inclusive of Municipal Tax with effect from 18th October, 1986. Though the company had accepted the said offer but the defendants did not make any payment to the company at the enhance rate. In the month of March, 1996, the company had instituted a suit against the defendants being CS No. 53 of 1996 for eviction of the defendants and in the suit on the prayer of the company, a Commissioner was appointed for the purpose of ascertaining the market rent to determine the mesne profit and damages. Being aggrieved with the order, the defendants have preferred an appeal being APOT No. 435 of 2003 and during the pendency of the appeal, the defendants have agreed to pay the enhance rent at the rate of Rs. 9.02 per sq. ft. Being aggrieved with the order, the defendants have preferred an appeal being APOT No. 435 of 2003 and during the pendency of the appeal, the defendants have agreed to pay the enhance rent at the rate of Rs. 9.02 per sq. ft. inclusive of Municipal Tax with effect from 18.10.1986 subject to the following conditions : “i) The said company would not press for payment of interest on arrears of rent; ii) The said company would not press for payment of damages and cost of suit; iii) The said company would not press for eviction of the department from the said premises; and iv) Revision of rent for the further periods would be done as per the instructions of the Ministry of Urban Development, i.e. from 18.10.1991 to 17.10.1996, from 18.10.1996 to 17.10.2001 and thereafter the rent would be revised every three years vide DV(Works) Office Memorandum No. 8/1/99 w11(DGW)/Pt. dated 14.08.2001.” 4. In terms of the admission on the part of the defendants, the Hon’ble Division Bench had disposed of the appeal on 17th March, 2006 and subsequently the order was modified on 5th June, 2006. As per the clause (iv) of the condition above the revised rent at the rate of Rs. 9.02 per sq. ft. per month was valid for five years w.e.f. 18th October, 1991 till 17th October 1996 and from 18th October, 1996 to 17th October, 2001 and thereafter the rent would be revised every three years as per Memorandum No. 8/1/99-WII(DGW)Pt. dated 14th August, 2001. As the defendants did not paid the agreed revised monthly rent, accordingly, the company had filed a writ petition being WP No. 854 of 2007 praying for payment of agreed revised rent and further in terms of the memorandum dated 14th August, 2001. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, by an order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Company Petition the company was amalgamated with the plaintiff and the suit premises was transferred in the name of the plaintiff with all rights. As per the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the above writ petition, the defendants have submitted a report on 16th June, 2016 and on the basis of the report, the writ petition filed by the plaintiff was disposed of on 30th June, 2016. As per the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the above writ petition, the defendants have submitted a report on 16th June, 2016 and on the basis of the report, the writ petition filed by the plaintiff was disposed of on 30th June, 2016. Being aggrieved with the order dated 16th June, 2016, the plaintiff had preferred an appeal being APO No. 93 of 2019 and the Hon’ble Division bench had disposed of the said appeal by granting leave to the plaintiff to institute appropriate proceedings for realisation of the sum that may be due to the plaintiff and for such purpose, the plaintiff is entitled to rely upon the report filed by the defendants and other papers. After the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, the plaintiff has instituted the instant suit. 6. The report submitted by the defendants during the pendency of the writ petition reads as follows : “Submission of a report before Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta pursuant to the Order of The Hon’ble Debangsu Basak in connection with the W.P. No. 854 of 2007 in the case of Model Manufacturing Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors. This is humbly submitted before Your honour that in the revision of rent there are following two components of the total rent payable to the landlord:- (v) Basic Rent. (vi) Municipal tax component on basis rent. 2. As far as the Basic Rent is concerned our humble submission is that CPWD, which is the competent authority to issue the Rent Reasonableness Certificate [RRC] has submitted the same on 07/06/2016 & finally again on 15/06/2016 along with the Market Rate [copy enclosed as Annexure-A & Annexure-B]. 3. We are ready to pay the Basic rent subject to approval of the competent authority i.e. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. It is expected that the approval of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi will be obtained through multiple layers of authorities with a reasonable period of 1 (one) month from today once the municipal tax component is finalized by the (PWD). 4. It is expected that the approval of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi will be obtained through multiple layers of authorities with a reasonable period of 1 (one) month from today once the municipal tax component is finalized by the (PWD). 4. As far as Municipal tax is concerned, the Representative of the petitioner present in the meeting specifically denied submitting the municipal tax receipts in the joint meeting hold under the chairmanship of the superintending Engineer, Kolkata Central Circle-II, CPWD & Chairman Hiring Committee and it is recorded in the Minutes of meeting [copy of the minutes of the 1st meeting enclosed as B Annexure-C]. Hence the RRC issued by the CPWD on 07/06/2016 does not contain the municipal tax component. We are also not able to calculate the municipal tax component payable to the petitioner until & unless the petitioner provides us the municipal tax receipts for the entire rent revision periods. 5. It may kindly be noted that in the current submission of Market Rate of rent by the CPWD made on 15/06/2016, they have furnished rates inclusive of KMC taxes. However, they have not segregated the tax component in terms of percentage or amount, in which case it is not possible for the Department to arrive at any conclusive figure in order to settle the matter with the landlord. We have already taken up the matter with the CPWD vide this office letter dtd. 15/06/2016 [copy enclosed as Annexure-D]. Moreover, it is prayed that a direction may be given to CPWD to furnish the bifurcated figures and also allow the Income Tax Department further time until then. The Internal Financial Unit (IFU) of Department of Revenue has stated that the municipal taxes component of the proposed rent may be as per the actual payable where the rent assessed under the RRC is exclusive of municipal tax [copy enclosed as Annexure-E]. 6. Hence it is our humble prayer that Your Lordship may direct the CPWD to furnish the bifurcated figures of Municipal tax component in the Market Rate of rent at the same time Your Lordship may direct the petitioner to furnish the Municipal tax receipts to the Income Tax Department. Also allow the Income Tax Department further time until then.” 7. Mr. Also allow the Income Tax Department further time until then.” 7. Mr. Ranjan Deb, Learned Senior Advocate representing the plaintiff submits that as per report submitted by the defendants for the purpose of revision of rent two components are to be considered i.e. (i) Basic Rent and (ii) Municipal Tax component on the basic rent. The plaintiff has calculated the rent in terms of the report which are as follows : “-Rs. 6.76 from October, 1991 to October, 1996; - Rs. 10.69 from October, 1996 to October 2001; - Rs. 14.27 from October, 2001 to October, 2004; - Rs. 14.22 from October, 2004 to October, 2007 and - Rs. 16.79 from October, 2007 to September, 2010.” 8. On the basis of the above Calculation, the plaintiff is claiming the total amount of Rs.5,47,70,672.40/-. Mr. Deb submits that the defendants have admitted the above rates by submitting the report before the Hon’ble High Court in the writ proceeding and the Hon’ble Division Bench has given liberty to the plaintiff to rely upon the said report and thus the defendants have admitted the claim of the plaintiff and after submission of the report, the defendants have no defense to restrain the claim of the plaintiff and prayed for summary judgment. 9. Per contra, Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta, Learned advocate representing the defendant submits that the defendants have never admitted the claim made by the plaintiff. He submits that in the report the defendants have informed this Court, the revision of rent is to be considered in two components i.e. basic rent as well as municipal tax component on the basic rent. In the report, it was prayed before the Hon’ble Court to direct the CPWD to furnish the bifurcated figures of municipal tax component in the market rate of the rent and further prayed for a direction upon the plaintiff herein to furnish the municipal tax receipts to the Income Tax Department. 10. Mr. Dasgupta submits that the report which the plaintiff is relying upon is not a conclusive report and as such he cannot be said that in the said report, revise rent has been decided and the defendant is liable to pay the same. 11. Mr. 10. Mr. Dasgupta submits that the report which the plaintiff is relying upon is not a conclusive report and as such he cannot be said that in the said report, revise rent has been decided and the defendant is liable to pay the same. 11. Mr. Dasgupta further submits that in the order dated 17.03.2006 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench wherein the report of the defendants was considered but in the said report in Clause (iv), it is mentioned that after 17.10.2001, the rent would be revised every three years in terms of the Memorandum dt. 14.08.2001. 12. Mr. Dasgupta has drawn the attention of the Memorandum dated 14.08.2001 and submits that for the purpose of revision of the monthly rent after three years, the landlord has to produce the tax receipts so as to enable the authority to consider the basic rent as well as municipal tax component. 13. Mr. Dasgupta further submits that for production of the municipal tax receipts, the plaintiff was called by the defendants on several occasions but the plaintiff has not produced the municipal tax receipts for revision of the monthly rent in terms of the Memorandum of 2001. 14. Mr. Dasgupta submits that the calculation made by the plaintiff on the basis of which the plaintiff is claiming the arrears of rent is totally baseless as the rate of enhancement has been unilaterally decided by the plaintiff of his own and the defendants have not admitted the calculation made by the plaintiff. 15. Mr. Dasgupta further submits that the basic rent component and the municipal tax component could not be clearly identified for rent negotiation and revision of rent and accordingly the defendants have requested the Municipal Corporation to provide the tax paid by the plaintiff and accordingly the Municipal Corporation has provided the details and on receipt of the same, the defendants found that the plaintiff has collected municipal tax to the tune of Rs. 4,46,96,232/-whereas the tax liability was payable by the defendants was only Rs. 52,04,544/-and thus the plaintiff has realized excess amount of Rs. 3,94,91,688/-by making profit out of taxes and as such the plaintiff refused to submits the municipal tax receipts to the defendant for rent revision. 16. Mr. 4,46,96,232/-whereas the tax liability was payable by the defendants was only Rs. 52,04,544/-and thus the plaintiff has realized excess amount of Rs. 3,94,91,688/-by making profit out of taxes and as such the plaintiff refused to submits the municipal tax receipts to the defendant for rent revision. 16. Mr. Dasgupta Submits that though the Hon’ble Division Bench had disposed of the appeal preferred by the plaintiff on receipt of the report and in the said order, it is categorically mentioned that the income tax authorities have not made any admission in the report and the department is not obliged to make any payment to the plaintiff. 17. Mr. Dasgupta submits that there is a triable issue in the suit filed by the plaintiff and the issues is to be decided by adducing evidence by the parties and thus the application filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. 18. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, considered the pleadings and the documents available on record. 19. The plaintiff is claiming the revised monthly rent from 18th October, 1991 till 17th September, 2010 as per the report filed by the income tax authorities before the Hon’ble Division Bench on 16th June, 2016. In the report it is mentioned that for revision of monthly rent two components are to be considered i.e. basic rent and municipal tax component on the basic rent. 20. The CPWD being the competent authority had issued the Rent Reasonable Certificate on 15th June, 2016 along with market rate. As regard the municipal tax, the plaintiff has not provided municipal tax receipts. In the report, it is clarified that unless and until the plaintiff provides the municipal tax receipts to the defendants, it is not possible to calculate the municipal tax component. 21. In the report, the Income Tax Authority have prayed before the Hon’ble Court for a direction upon the CPWD to furnish the bifurcated figure of municipal tax component in the market rate of rent and also prayed for a direction upon the plaintiff to furnish municipal tax receipt but the Hon’ble Division Bench has granted leave to the plaintiff to institute appropriate proceeding for realisation of the sum which is due to the plaintiff. 22. 22. In the written statement as well as in the affidavit in opposition filed by the defendants, the defendants have admitted that a letter was written to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation on 21.01.2021 to ascertain the Municipal Tax component of 31608 sq. ft. of area occupied by the defendant at the model house and in reply the Municipal Corporation vide their letter dt. 01/02/2021 informed to the defendants that the property tax levied by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation with respect of the said property is Rs. 54,214/-per quarter. As per report dated 16th June, 2016, the CPWD has submitted Rent Reasonableness Certificate along with market rate on 15th June, 2016, which the defendants have not denied. 23. The main contention of the defendants that the plaintiff has not provided tax receipts due to which the defendants have not revised the monthly rent but as per record and as per the submissions of the defendants, the defendants have obtain tax details from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and thus the contention raised by the defendant cannot be accepted. 24. The CPWD had submitted Rent Reasonable Certificate according to the prevailing market rate with respect of 40 Strand Road which has been occupied by the defendants which are as follows : RENT REASONABLNESS CERTIFICATE ACCORDING TO THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE PREMISES AT 40 STRAND ROAD OCCUPIED BY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. Prevailing Market Rate of the said premises as under are given below in tabulated form : Sl. No. Year As per FRC issued from this office according to the recognized principal of valuation (excluding KMC Taxes) per sq. ft. per month on Carpet Area FRC According to the market rate (including KMC Taxes) per sq. ft. per month on Carpet Area. Remarks A B 1. 10/1991 Rs. 6.76/- Not Available Not Available 2. 10/1996 Rs. 10.69/- Rs. 9.45 FRC may be restricted up to MR i.e. Rs. 9.45 as per Column ‘B’ 3. 10/2001 Rs. 14.27/- Rs. 15.50 The two figures of the rents i.e. Rs. 14.27 to Rs. 15.50 shall be considered as a range of reasonable rent and it shall be for the hiring department to negotiate and settle the rent, keeping in view this range 4. 10/2004 Rs. 14.22/- Rs. 21.03 to 23.00 The figure of Rs. 14.22 per sq. ft. 14.27/- Rs. 15.50 The two figures of the rents i.e. Rs. 14.27 to Rs. 15.50 shall be considered as a range of reasonable rent and it shall be for the hiring department to negotiate and settle the rent, keeping in view this range 4. 10/2004 Rs. 14.22/- Rs. 21.03 to 23.00 The figure of Rs. 14.22 per sq. ft. per month is based on principal of valuation and rate rent varies from Rs 21.03 to 23.00 is based on market rate. This range shall be considered as a range of reasonable rent and it shall be for the hiring department to negotiate and settle the rent, keeping in view this range. 5. 10/2007 Rs. 16.79/- Rs. 23.00 to 26.30 The figure of Rs. 16.79 per sq. feet per month is based on principal of valuation and rate rent varies from Rs. 23.00 to 26.30 is based on market rate. This range shall be considered as a range of reasonable rent and it shall be for the hiring department to negotiate and settle the rent, keeping in view this range. 25. The limited issue in an application under Chapter XIIIA is whether the statements or facts disclosed by the defendant in its affidavit are such that a Court is convinced that these can be construed as a "good defence" and would serve as a speed-breaker in the Court's racing to pronounce judgment in favour of a plaintiff. The defence disclosed would have to be such as to convince the Court of the necessity of a further opportunity being given to the defendant to defend the plaintiff's case by way of a full-fledged contest at the time of trial, subject to Rules 9 and 10 of Chapter XIIIA. In view of the alleged defence disclosed by the defendant in this case, the defendant cannot really have the benefit of the window contemplated in Rule 6, since it is not a case of a weak or even a defence which can be improved on evidence, but a case of no defence at all. 26. In the present case the basic rent assessed by the competent authority is available on record and the tax of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation is also obtained by the defendants and have relied upon the said tax and thus this court finds that the defendant has no defence to defend the case of the plaintiff. 27. 26. In the present case the basic rent assessed by the competent authority is available on record and the tax of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation is also obtained by the defendants and have relied upon the said tax and thus this court finds that the defendant has no defence to defend the case of the plaintiff. 27. In view of the above, the defendants are directed to assess the revised monthly as per the Rent Reasonable Certificate along with market rate submitted by the competent authority dt. 15.06.2016 as well as the Municipal Tax provided by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation with effect from 18th October, 1991 till 17th September, 2010 and to pay the same to the plaintiff within two months from date. Decree be drawn accordingly. As regard interest part, the same is relegated to the suit. 28. G.A. 3 of 2021 is thus disposed of.