GITA DEVI HARIWAL Vs. CHITTA RANJAN SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these cases the Rules were issued under Article 227 of the Constitution and interim stay of the proceedings namely under Section 29-B of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act in R. C. Case No. 69 of 1981 and in R. C. Case No, 70 of 1981 were granted. The opposite party filed an application Under Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act against the petitioners. These applications need not be valued although they are in the nature of eviction suits and a court-fee of 75 paise is affixed to the Petitions. Against the order of the learned Rent Controller, the present petitioners have come up in revision under Article 227 of the Constn. as there is no appeal or second appeal provided against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller Under Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. In filing the present applications under Article 227 of the Constn. the petitioners have valued the applications at Rs. 1,100/- only in both cases. The preliminary objection is taken by the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party that these applications are not entertainable by the single Judge of this Court, as the applications are incapable of valuation or in the alternative if valued must be valued according to the valuation for a suit for eviction and the rent payable in each of the cases being at Rs. 800/- per month according to the English calendar month the applications are entertainable by the Division Bench, Accordingly, from whatever angle it may be looked at. the Division Bench alone can entertain these applications. It has been pointed out by the learned Advocate for the opposite party that according to the Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules, the jurisdiction of the single Judge is specified and all other matters that do not come within the ambit of Schedule II, Chap. II of the Appellate Side Rules will be entertainable by the Division Bench. Therefore, in these cases the applications should be dismissed as they are not properly valued and if properly valued should be according to the value of the suits. Hence the Division Bench would be the proper forum for entertaining these applications. On the other hand, it has been argued for the petitioners that as there is no need for valuing the applications Under Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 before the learned Rent Controller where only a court-fee of 75 paise was to be affixed to each application it follows therefrom that the applications under Article 227 should be valued below five thousand and hence entertainable by a single Judge of this Court and in matters that cannot be valued there being no standard of valuation in such cases, the single Bench is the proper forum to entertain such application. The petitioners have given their own valuation to the applications. On what basis that is given is not understandable. If they are valued according to the valuation of the suits for eviction under Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act they should be valued above Rs. 5,000/- as the monthly rent is Rs. 800/- and if they are incapable of valuation, they should nevertheless be filed before the Division Bench.

(2.) In my view, if before the learned Rent Controller there is no need to give any valuation, when going up in revision under Article 227 of the Constn the standard of valuation for suits has to be followed and hence the petitioners' applications have been undervalued.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the applications if not properly valued would not be entertainable by this Court. The applications are accordingly dismissed.