QASIM Vs. SAYED MD AHSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Rent Controller, Calcutta, having dismissed an application of the present petitioner for a declaration under section 16 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 of his tenancy right under Messrs. Skin Traders, opposite party No. 3, he filed an appeal under the provisions of section 29 of the Act, Rule 23 of the rules framed under section 42 of that Act provided that the court-fees payable on a memorandum of appeal under section 29 shall be such as is provided in Article 1 of schedule 1 to the Court-fees Act, 1870. The learned Chief Judge in whose court the memorandum of appeal was filed, rejected the petitioner's contention that Rule 23 was not applicable to this case and further held that there was. an objective standard for assessing the value of the relief claimed by him and that this was twelve times the monthly rent of Rs. 250/ -. He directed the appellant to pay ad valorem court-fees on a sum of Rs. 3,000/ -.

(2.) ON behalf of the petitioner Mr. Chakravarty does not contend before us that the rule 23 is not applicable. His contention is that when a sub-tenant like the present petitioner wants a declaration of a right of tenancy, it is not correct to say that there is any objective standard of the value of the right claimed and that consequently the tenant petitioner should be free to value his reliefs as he thinks fit.

(3.) IN my judgment this contention should prevail. It is quite true that a tenancy right has a definite value and there is an objective standard of that value. If a person whose right to a tenancy is disputed, is claiming declaration of his tenancy right, that right can be valued objectively, and ordinarily, an objective standard of twelve times the rent may be a correct valuation. Where however, the parson is already a tenant in respect of the premises, though a sub-tenant, and that sub-tenant applies for a declaration that the tenant's interest in tike part of the premises that has been sublet shall cease, and that the subtenant shall become the tenant directly under the landlord, I do not think it reasonable to say that this change in the nature of the tenancy, namely, from a sub-tenancy under a intermediate tenant to a tenancy under the landlord, can be valued objectively.