A tenant who continues to occupy the premises after the expiry of the lease and service of a notice to quit becomes a trespasser, and the suit for recovery of possession from such a tenant should be valued under Section 7(vi)(a) of the Court Fees Act, 1970, based on the market value of the suit premises.

( 1 ) BY this motion the defendant has sought inter alia an order for return of the plaint filed in this suit and for stay of all proceedings until disposal on the ground that this Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

( 2 ) THE success or failure of the defendant on its motion really depends on the construction of the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Courtfees Act, 1970 ("the said Act" for short) for determining the question as to whether or not this Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this Suit. The relevant provisions of the said Act as amended by the 1974 Amendment Act are set out hereunder for convenience. "7. (vi) For recovery of possession of immovable property.-- In a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property from- (a) a trespasser, where no declaration of title to property is either prayed for or necessary for disposal of the suit - according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint subject to the provisions of section 11;""7. (xiii) In the following suits between landlord and tenant - (a) to (c)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx (d) for the recovery of immovable property from a tenant including a tenant holding over after 7 the determination of a tenancy, (e) to (g) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx according to the amount of the rent of the immovable property to which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. "" 11. If the Court is of opinion that the subjectmatter of any suit has been wrongly valued, it may revise the valuation and determine the correct valuation and may hold such inquiry as it thinks fit for such purpose. "

( 3 ) IT is well-settled that as no rules have been framed by the State Government under S. 3 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 the value as determined by the aforesaid provisions of the said Act in respect of suits falling within the categories specified therein determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court to entertain, try and determine such suits

( 4 ) THE action as laid in the plaint is for the recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises from the tenant as trespasser. It appears from the plaint that upon expiry of its lease by efflux of time and despite notice to quit served upon it the defendant "wrongfully failed and neglected to quit, vacate and deliver up vacant and

peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff and since then has been and still is in wrongful and illegal possession of the suit premises as a trespasser therein. ''

( 5 ) FOR the purpose of jurisdiction the plaintiff has valued this suit on the basis of the market value of the suit premises.

( 6 ) THE only question that arises for determination in this motion is as to what is the status of a tenant who continues to be in possession of the suit premises after he has been served with a notice to quit. Does he upon such service become a trespasser, he learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon the following cases in support of his submission that despite such service in the notice to quit the tenant continues to be a tenant within the meaning of S. 7 paragraph (xiii) (d) of the said Act :- (A) Govinda Kumar Sur v. Mohini Mohan Sen, AIR 1930 Cal 42. In this case the learned Division Bench of this Court held that the word 'tenant' means an ex-tenant that is a person who was a tenant but has now ceased to be so within the meaning of S. 7 paragraph (xi) (cc) of the old Court Fees Act, 1870. The learned Division Bench expressly dissented from the view expressed by a learned Single Judge of this Court Cammide J. in the case of 'govinda Ram Agarwalla v. Dulu Pada Dutt, 32 Cal WN 1113 : (AIR 1928 Cal 753 (1) where that learned Judge observed as follows:-"once the tenancy has been determined the person who was a tenant becomes a trespasser holding over and he could only be a tenant holding over provided that such holding over was with the consent express or implied of the landlord''