SATYABRATA SINHA, J. - (1.) THE only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether this Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit ?
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent in Paragraph 11 valued the suit in the following terms :- "The market value of the suit premises exceeds Rs. 10,00,000/-, since in this suit the plaintiff is claiming possession of the suit premises from a trespasser, who has no right whatsoever to be in occupation and/or enjoyment of the suit premises, the plaintiff has valued this suit at the value of the said property being in excess of Rs. 10,00,000/-. In the premises this Hon'ble Court has and the City Civil Court at Calcutta has not the jurisdiction to receive, try and determine this suit." The prayers made by the plaintiff in the suit are - "(a) Decree for khas possession and vacant possession of the suit premises, being the flat on the 8th Floor of 3A, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta particulars whereof are contained in the Schedule 'B' hereto; (b) Decree for mesne profits @ Rs. 5,000/- per diem from 1st March, 1995 till vacant possession of the suit premises has been made over to the plaintiff." Admittedly, the rent fixed for the tenement was Rs. 5,000/- per month. The terms and conditions of the tenancy had been fixed in terms of an indenture of lease dated 10th December, 1973. The suit has been filed, inter alia, on the ground that the period of tenancy has expired.
(3.) THE learned trial Judge upon referring the decisions in Govinda Kumar Sur v. Mohini Mohan Sen and Ors., AIR 1930 Cal 42; Govinda Ram Agarwalla v. Dulu Pada Dutt and Anr., 32 CWN 1113; Brigadier K.K. Verma and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., AIR 1954 Bombay 358 and Smt. Shanti Devi v. Amal Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1981 SC 1550, held that valuation of the suit under Section 7 Paragraph (v)(2) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 as has been done in the instant case is permissible.;