RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. SANDHYA CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision under section 115 of the C.P.C. the defendant has come up against the appellate judgment dated 28.6.94 passed in Misc. Appeal No.374/93 by the learned Additional District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas(South) whereby the learned Judge dismissed the Misc. Appeal on contest and affirmed the order of the learned Assistant District Judge, 10th Court, being order No.123 dated 12.2.93 passed in Title Suit No.69/88. By the said order the learned Assistant District Judge rejected the petition of the defendant holding that the suit has been over valued for the purpose of avoiding the lowest court competent to try the suit. In that petition the defendant also asserted that the valuation that has been given by the plaintiff in the suit is appropriate and reasonable. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties in that suit, the learned Assistant District Judge, by the impugned order No. 123 dated 12.2.93, rejected the prayer and decided the issue No.3 which was framed for the purpose in favour of the plaintiff. An appeal has been taken out against the said order before the court of the learned Additional District Judge as indicated earlier and there also the defendant-appellant canvassed those points or allegations as has been made earlier but without any effect. Hence this revision.

(2.) In a narrow compass the fact of the case is that the plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant for his eviction from the suit property on the ground that he was a licencee and his licence has been revoked for damages and for mesne profits. In paragraph 7 of the plaint, the plaintiff asserted that if in the ultimate analysis the court found out that the defendant is not a licensee but a tenant under the premises Tenancy Act, then the letter that was sent by the defendant may be treated as a notice under section 13(1)(j)(k) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. In the back drop of this fact, the plaintiff valued the suit on the basis of the licence fee at Rs.4,800/- and Rs.10,500/- towards damages and/or mesne profits tentatively and advalorem court fee was paid. That statement of valuation has been given in paragraph 9 of the plaint and in the prayer portion. In prayer (b) the plaintiff prayed for a degree for mesne profit or damages @Rs.100 per diem on and from 1.6.85 till the date of delivery of khas possession and undertook to deposit additional court fee after actual determination of the mesne profits according to the provision of Order 20 rule 12 of the C.P.C.

(3.) Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the valuation that has been given in the plaint is arbitrary and unreasonable. He further contended that in order to avoid the lowest court competent to try the suit in the instant case, the court of the Munsif has been avoided in violation of section 15 of the C.P.C. The suit has been instituted in the court of the Assistant District Judge. Mr. Roy further contended that the plaintiff has the liberty to value his own suit according to his own valuation unless the valuation of the suit is arbitrary and unreasonable. He further contended that the valuation as has been put in this suit, is arbitrary and unreasonable. In support of his contention that where a valuation put by the plaintiff is arbitrary and unreasonable, the court has the power to interfere with that valuation and set at right the valuation that has been put by the plaintiff in a suit, relied on Apex Court decisions to wit, Abdul Hamid v. Abdul Majid, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1150, Minakshi Sundaram v. Venkatachalam reported in AIR 1979 SC 389, Tara Devi v. Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj, reported in AIR 1987 SC 2086, In Re: Sm. Dalia Ghosh, reported in 1991(2) Calcutta Law Journal, 226, In re: Manirampur Cultural Association, reported in 92 CalWN 502. Mr. Roy also referred to the decision of Mustafa Shah v. Dhanu Shah, reported in 70 CalWN 1137 for showing that in an appropriate case where a wrong valuation has been given, the court can in an appropriate case set aside the same under revisional jurisdiction.