The Court, The moot question that falls for determination in this appeal is. even if whether the alleged overvaluation of a suit can be taken as a defence in an application under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court.

A very brief resume of the facts necessary for appreciating the scope of the question is as follows:

In the year 1987 by a registered lease of a premises located at the Lindsey Street, Kolkata, measuring about 3,265 square feet the defendant/ appellant became monthly tenant under the plaintiff/ respondent at a monthly rental of Rs.24,487.50. The lease deed which is annexed to the application for stay was for a period of for five years renewable at the option of the lessee-appellant upon notice to the lessor - plaintiff for a further period of five years on the same terms and conditions, except that the rent would be increased by 15 per cent. The lease deed also provided for a further extension of lease for another five years on the same terms and conditions. Upon the expiry of the first period of five years the appellant sought for an extension for five more years. The respondent declined to renew the same and issued a notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. A suit for eviction was filed in the year 1992. In the year 2008 the suit was withdrawn with liberty to file another suit afresh and the present suit being C.S. No. 258 of 2008 was filed for recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises with mesne profits. Mesne profits were claimed for 110 days at the rate of Rs.10,884/-per day aggregating to Rs.11,97,240/-. The suit was valued at Rs.14,91,090.

In the said suit an application under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court was taken out by the plaintiff praying for a decree of eviction of the defendant as stated in the Master Summons. The defendant contested the said application by filing an affidavit-in-opposition and the plaintiff filed an affidavit-in-reply thereto. Subsequently, the defendant filed a supplementary affidavit wherein for the first time the point of overvaluation of the suit property was taken as a defence by the defendant.

The learned trial Judge passed a decree for eviction in terms of prayer (a) of the Master Summons. This judgment is the subject matter of the present appeal. Mr. Das, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that this Court did not have the jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit as the same did not come within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 requires a suit to be valued in accordance with the Court Fees Act and section 7(xiii)(d) of the Court Fees Act provides that the court fee is to be adjudicated on the basis of twelve months’ rent which in the instant case comes to Rs.2,93,850/-.But the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court is above Rs.10 lacs. Mr. Das has submitted that the plaintiff in order to bring the instant suit within the jurisdiction of this Court has included the mesne profits as a part of the valuation for suit. The plaintiff’s claim for the mesne profit have been absurd, fanciful and arbitrary.

A further aspect of Mr. Das submission was that the respondent claimed payment at the rate of Rs.24,487.50 per month for a period when there was no contract between the parties and this claim was considered by the plaintiff to be unreasonable and arbitrary. According to the appellant the mesne profits as claimed is not borne out of the agreement as the lease deed provides for an increase of rent by 15 per cent every five years which rules out adopting any other methodology for calculating the valuation of the suit. The Advocate’s notice dated August 9, 2008 on behalf of the plaintiff claimed monthly rent at the rate of Rs.24,487.50 and in that case it cannot claim mesne profits on and from August 24, 2008 at the rate of Rs. 10,884/- per day. The appellant has