AMRITALAL CHATTERJEE Vs. HARALAL CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Alipore, on a point made under the Court Fees Act. It raises interesting and important questions of law and interpretation on Section 8C of the Court Fees Act and the amendment introduced by the Court Fees (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1963 (West Bengal Act XVIII of 1963). By Section 3(2) of this amending Act a new Clause VA was introduced in Section 7 which reads as follows:

(2.) The facts giving rise to this point of valuation under the Court Fees Act in this case are briefly as follows. The suit is a suit for eviction of the licensee. The Plaintiff's case is that he is the owner of the property and the Defendants were the licensees. The license was revoked on March 19, 1964. The Plaintiff sues for a decree for recovery of possession in respect of two rooms and a kitchen described in schedule B of the plaint. It is a part or portion of premises No. 11, Russa South Third Lane which is a two storeyed building. The Plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 400 and the Court fees under Section 7VA(b)(ii) of the Court Fees Act was paid. Before proceeding further it may be noticed that it is a litigation between two brothers and the licensee is a brother.

(3.) The licensee brother's contention is that the subject matter of the suit has been wrongly valued and the Court should institute an enquiry under Section 8C of the Court Fees' Act. The learned Subordinate Judge following the Special Bench decision of this Court in Sisir Kumar Dutta v. Sushil Kumar Dutta, 1961 AIR(Cal) 229 and by an interpretation of the Amendment as quoted above came to the conclusion that, to use his own words,