KAMAKHYA SINGHDEO Vs. MADULA INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court: The sole defendant in the suit, instituted on August 3rd, 1979 for its eviction from the suit premises being flat No. 3 at premises No. 3-E, Camac Street, Kolkata, has taken out this application dated June 12th, 2008 praying that the issue of jurisdiction of this Court to receive, try or determine the suit may be tried first as a preliminary issue and settlement of the other issues may be postponed until after determination of that issue. The sole plaintiff is contesting the application without filing any opposition.

(2.) THE only ground on which the defendant says that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit is that though being a suit by a landlord for recovery of immovable property from his tenant, in view of the provisions of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970, section 7 (xiii), the amount of fee payable was to be computed according to the amount of the rent of the immovable property to which the suit referred, payable for the year next before the date of presentation of the plaint, and thus the suit was to be valued only at Rs. 12000/-, the agreed a month's rent for the suit premises being Rs. l. 000/-, only for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court the plaintiff deliberately overvalued it at Rs. 52,950/-, when in view of the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, section 20 read with the first schedule, the actual value of the suit being not exceeding Rs. 50,000/-, only the City Civil Court at Calcutta, and not this Court, was competent to entertain and try it.

(3.) THE defendant was inducted in the suit premises as a tenant on December 28th, 1977. The rent was Rs. 1,000/ -. According to the plaintiff, on December 28th, 1977 itself the defendant gave him a notice in writing that it would quit and vacate the suit premises on February 1st, 1978. Thus according to the plaintiff the tenancy was created only for one month. His further case is that in compliance with the quit notice dated December 28th, 1977 the defendant failed and neglected to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to him, and hence with effect from February 1st,. 1978 it continued to occupy the suit premises wrongfully and illegally as a trespasser, and as a result, he became entitled to get a decree for recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises, and also a decree for Rs. 40,950/-on account of damages at the rate of Rs. 75 per diem from February 1st, 1978 till July 31st, 1979, since the reasonable letting out value of the suit premises was Rs. 75 per diem. Claiming these relief, and also a decree for future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 75 per diem from the date of filing the suit till delivery of vacant possession of the flat, he instituted the suit valuing it for the purpose of jurisdiction and Court fees at Rs. 52,950/ -.