T. E. Thomson & Company Limited vs Musical Films Private Limited on 23 July, 2025

Calcutta High Court

T. E. Thomson & Company Limited vs Musical Films Private Limited on 23 July, 2025

Author: Sugato Majumdar

Bench: Sugato Majumdar

OD - 14

                                  ORDER SHEET
                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                 ORIGINAL SIDE


                                 IA NO. GA/6/2024
                                  In CS/258/2018

                      T. E. THOMSON & COMPANY LIMITED
                                      Vs
                       MUSICAL FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED

BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR
Date: 23rd July, 2025


                                                                          Appearance:
                                                             Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv.
                                                         Mr. Rittick Chowdhury, Adv.
                                                             Mr. Dwip Raj Basu, Adv.
                                                                    ...for the Plaintiff.


                                                       Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mitra, Sr. Adv.
                                                        Mrs. Manju Agarwal, Sr. Adv.
                                                              Ms. Anju Mannot, Adv.
                                                                  ...for the Defendant.


      The Court: The instant application is filed by the Plaintiff, praying for deposit

of occupational charges, along with other prayers. It is contended that monthly

tenancy of the Respondent was terminated by the Plaintiff/Petitioner in terms of

notice dated 13th February, 2018. Inspite of receiving of the notice and expiry of the

period of tenancy the Respondent/Defendant continued to remain in possession of

the demise premises without any authority. Because of wrongful possession of the

Defendant the instant application is filed, asking them to pay for occupational

charges.

2

Affidavit-in-Opposition was filed by the Defendant/Respondent denying the

allegations and contentions as well as denying liability to pay occupational charges in

terms of the present application.

Mr. Gupta, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

Petitioner is an unauthorized occupier in the suit premises for which he is liable to

pay occupational charges. Referring to Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar Huf Vs.

Ashwin Bhanulal Desai [(2024) 8 SCC 668]. Mr. Gupta submitted that the

Defendant is liable to pay rent equivalent to mesne profits from the date, they are not

entitle to retain possession. Mr. Gupta referred to:

Achal Misra Vs. Rama Shanker Singh & Ors. [(2005) 5 SCC 531],

Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. [(2005) 1 SCC

705],

Martin & Haris Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Mehta & Ors. [(2022) 8 SCC 527]

to substantiate his contentions.

Mr. Mitra, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Respondent/Defendant firstly argued that in terms of the Order dated 4th September,

2020, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the Defendant, namely, his client

to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as occupational charges to be paid within

seventh day of every month to the Plaintiff. Subsequently, another Co-ordinate

Bench in terms of Order dated 9th October, 2020 confirmed such payment. Referring

to Y. B. Patil & Ors. Vs. Y. L. Patil [(1976) 4 SCC 66], Bhanu Kumar Jain

Vs. Archana Kumar & Anr. [(2005) 1 SCC 787], Mr. Mitra submitted that the

principal of res judicata is not only applicable to the decided suits but also to the

interlocutory applications in the same suit. Since, the Co-ordinate Bench has already
3

directed to pay the occupational charges, there is no scope of entertaining the present

application.

Secondly, Mr. Mitra, the Learned Senior Counsel argued that unless it is

decided that the occupation of the Defendant/Respondent is unauthorized or illegal,

the Respondent/Defendant is not liable to pay any occupational charges whatsoever.

It is further submitted that decisions relied on by Mr. Gupta are applicable in the

facts and circumstances specific to those cases.

I have heard rival submissions.

The issue of payment of occupational charges has already been decided by the

Co-ordinate Bench in terms of the Order dated 04/09/2020. Principle of res

judicata, as enunciated in Y.B. Patil‘s case, squarely works here. Issue of payment

of occupational charges need not be considered any further.

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of an application filed under

Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules observed that the Defendant has a triable

issue as to whether the rent includes occupier share of municipal tax and commercial

charges and left the question open whether the suit will be governed by the West

Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Question

whether the tenancy comes within ambit of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act,

1997 or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 did not figure before the Co-ordinate

Bench while passing the Order dated 4th September, 2020 directing payment of

occupational charges. However, this question should be decided in trial after taking

evidence. It is enough to say that the issue of payment of occupational charges has

already been ordered and decided and the Defendant offered occupational charges in

terms of the said order by way of bank draft. The Plaintiff is at liberty to encash the
4

bank draft and the Manager of the concerned bank, namely, Union Bank of India,

Dharmatala Branch may revalidate the bank drafts.

Prayer (c) of the Master Summons is, accordingly, allowed.

Copy of this order may be served upon the Manager of Union Bank of

Dharmatal Branch. For the purpose of revalidating of bank drafts particulars may be

furnished by the Plaintiff to the concerned bank.

GA 6 of 2024 stands disposed of accordingly.

The suit will appear in the list for framing of issues on 15th September, 2025.

Discovery inspection, discloser of documents as well as admission and denial

of documents shall be complete on or before the same date.

(SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.)