JAGDISH CHANDRA GHOSE Vs. BASANT KUMAR BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal question which arises for consideration in this case is what would be the basis of valuation of a suit for ejectment of a licensee when he continues to live in the licensed premises in spite of termination of his licence.

(2.) The necessary facts of the case may be shortly stated. The plaintiff has instituted the suit, out of which this application for revision arises, on the allegations, inter alia, that he purchased the house described at the foot of the plaint from the original owners, who had allowed the defendants to live in a portion of the house as licensees that the plaintiff asked the defendants on the 21st March, 1952, to vacate the premises and the defendants promised to vacate them in six months, that the defendants, though licensees, did not leave the house on the 21st September, 1952, and continued to stay there, and that they have made themselves liable to be evicted and further to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 15/-per month. The relevant relief claimed by him is:

(3.) The learned Munsif, before whom the suit is pending, has pecuniary jurisdiction up to the value of Rs. 2,000/- only. The defendants objected before him that the suit was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction as the value of the property in question was more than Rs. 30,000/-. After hearing both parties, the learned Munsif came to the conclusion that the market value of the property in suit was more than Rs. 2,000/-, and that the estimate of the building portion only was at about Rs. 11,000/-. He has, however, held that the value of the subject-matter of a suit in a case of this kind is "the right to eject the defendant and the value of that right is the value at which the defendant's right to remain in the house under the licence of the plaintiff may be valued". In support of this conclusion, he has relied upon Mt. Barkatunnisa Begum v. Mt. Kaniza Fatma, AIR 1927 Patna 140 and Satyendra Kumar v. District Board of 24 Parganas, AIR 1959 Cal 536. On this basis, he has held that the valuation given by the plaintiff, which was a sum of Rs. 84/-, was adequate, and hence the suit was within his pecuniary jurisdiction. He has also held that the Court-fee paid is sufficient. Defendant No. 1 has filed the present application for revision, and the case has been referred to this Bench because it was felt that the correctness of the decision in Mt. Barkatunnisa Begum's case, AIR 1927 Pat 140 was open to doubt.