AMALGAMATED FUELS LTD. Vs. HELEN ALEXINA RODGERS MARTIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two sets of defendants have filed two applications seeking dismissal of the suit. Both the applications have been heard analogously as they are in the same suit.

(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the defendant No. 1 has submitted that, the alternative prayer made by the defendant No. 1 for return of the plaint should be considered, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He has submitted that, the plaintiff has sought eviction of monthly tenants governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. He has submitted that, the tenancies of the defendants cannot be considered to be commercial tenancies. The Act of 1997 has granted protection against eviction to the defendants. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the various paragraphs of the plaint. He has submitted that, the defendant No. 1 is the heir and legal representative of the deceased tenant. As the heir and legal representative of the deceased tenant, the defendant No. 1 has a statutory right to the tenancy. At least for a period of five years, the plaintiff cannot have the defendant No. 1 evicted. The suit has to be valued on the basis of the rent payable in respect of the tenancy and not on the basis of the claim for mense profits. Therefore, this Court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try, entertain and determine the present suit. The suit therefore has to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate forum. In support of such contention, learned advocate appearing for the defendant No. 1 has relied upon (Ranjit Kumar Sengupta v. West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.,2017 SCCOnlineCal 20814).

(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have adopted the submissions advanced on behalf of the defendant No. 1.