ASHOK OPTICS Vs. ARUN CHORONE ROQUITTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present civil revision application assailing the Order No.18 dated February 19, 2015 passed by the Learned Judge, 11th Bench City Civil Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.9 of 2012 whereby the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of Civil Procedure Code read with Section 44 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 for rejection of plaint on the ground that plaintiff/opposite party has made a frivolous declaration on the plaint claiming an abnormal amount of mesne profits and on the basis of that the plaintiff/opposite party has valued the suit which exceeded the jurisdiction of Small Causes Court and directly filed the said suit before City Civil Court. That application was rejected by the Learned Judge, 11th Bench of City Civil Court by holding that the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 44 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1947 has got no merit at all and it is dismissed on contest.

(2.) Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty , learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner/defendant vehemently contended that the present suit is barred under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with Section 44 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 as admittedly the monthly rent of the said room is Rs. 200/- payable according to the English Calendar Month. Therefore, as per Sub Rule (b) of the Schedule 4 of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 as amended with effect from 9th June, 2006 the Small Causes Court has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as the monthly rent of the said room is only Rs. 200/-.

(3.) Mr. Chakraborty in support of his contention relied on Sub Rule (b) of amended schedule 4 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 which is quoted below :-