SHANKARLAL RANJANA Vs. KRISHNABHABINIDASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule, issued under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order dated July 25, 1969 passed by the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court of Calcutta, in Rent Appeal No. 17 of 1969 revising and raising the value of the said appeal pending before him and directing the petitioners to pay the deficit Court fees on their memorandum of appeal in accordance with the enhanced valuation. The petitioners are the tenants of the suit premises under the opposite parties on a rent of Rs. 1.000/ - per month. The petitioners initiated a proceeding before the learned Rent Controller being R.C. Case No. 654B of 1966 R.P. under the provisions of subsection (1) of Sec. 34 of the Wes: Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, against the opposite parties requiring them to make certain repairs to the suit premises. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the said case by holding that the said proceedings was not maintainable on the ground that the petitioners were not in possession of the suit premises as contended on behalf of the opposite parties.

(2.) The petitioners preferred the said appeal to the learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court under the pro -visions of clause (a) of sub -section (1) of Sec. 29 of the said Act from the said order of the learned Rent Controller on a Court -fee of 75 P. The opposite parties took an objection as to the valuation of the said appeal and the learned Chief Judge by its order dated July 25, 1969 revised the value of the said appeal and raised it to Rs. 12,000/ - which is 12 times the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/ -and detected the petitioners to pay the deficit Court -fees by August 8, 1969. In these circumstances, the petitioners have obtained this Rule against the said order of the learned Chief Judge.

(3.) The learned Advocate Mr. H.K. Mitra, appearing for the petitioners, has assailed the impugned order on these grounds. Rule 23 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 provides that the Court -fees payable on a memorandum of appeal shall be such as provided in Article 1 of Schedule 1 to the Court -fees Act but none of the items in that Article has any application to the said appeal and therefore the learned Chief Judge has acted illegally and without jurisdiction in raising the value of the said appeal and in directing the petitioners to pay the enhanced Court -fees. It is not possible to value the said appeal and hence valuation made and the Court -fees paid by the petitioners must be sustained on the principle laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of (1) Parmand Lokumal & Ors. v/s. The Khubadi Bhaibund Co -operative Credit Bank Ltd. & Ors. reported in, 62 Cal. W.N. 820.