Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.

This appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for eviction and mesne profit and is directed against an order dated 4th October, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed an application filed by the defendant for returning the plaint to be presented in the Court of competent pecuniary jurisdiction on the allegation that on the face of the averments made in the plaint the suit was overvalued. Being dissatisfied, the defendant has come up with the present appeal. There is no dispute that the appellant before us was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit property at a monthly rental of Rs.60,000/- and such tenancy is governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profit against the defendants. According to the plaintiff, the tenancy of the defendant No.1 expired on efflux of time on 31st May, 2008 and although the plaintiff was not obliged to give any notice to quit, by its three letters dated 29th May, 2008, 8th July, 2008 and 1st August, 2008, respectively, the plaintiff called upon the defendants to vacate the said flat and demanded mesne profit of Rs.3 lac a month. The plaintiff alleged that from 1st June, 2008 the defendants were in wrongful and unauthorized occupation of the suit flat without paying any occupation charges. It was further asserted that from 1st June, 2008 the defendant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.3 lac a month as mesne profit. In Paragraph 14 of the plaint, the plaintiff gave particulars of the valuation of the suit which is quoted below:

“14. For the purpose of jurisdiction the suit is valued at Rs.16,56,972/- as per particulars set out below:

(i) For recovery of possession of the said flat. Rs. 7,20,000.00

(ii) For mesne profits and monthly maintenance

charges mentioned in paragraph 10 above. Rs. 9,36,972.00

--------------------

Rs. 16,56,972.00

==============

Ad-valorem court fees of Rs.31,100/- has been paid with the plaint. The plaintiffs undertake to pay such further court fee as may be directed by this Hon’ble Court.”

According to the defendant, the suit on the basis of the averments made in the plaint could not be valued at Rs.16,56,972/- in accordance with the law and the plaintiff with mala fide intention has claimed mesne profit and monthly maintenance charges at an absurd rate for the purpose of bringing suit within the jurisdiction of this Court. As indicated earlier, the learned Single Judge has overruled the aforesaid contention of the appellant. Mrs. Agarwal, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has laboriously contended before us that the monthly rent payable by her client being Rs.60,000/-, the suit should be valued on the basis of yearly rental i.e. Rs.70,20,000/-for the purpose of the relief of eviction. Mrs. Agarwal further contends that as her client did not pay any rent for the months of June, July and August, 2008, a further sum of Rs.1,80,000/- being the rents for those three months should be added and thus, the proper valuation of the suit should be Rs.9,00,000/- as the suit has been filed on 24th September, 2008. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the aforesaid contention advanced by Mrs. Agarwal and has contended that in the first letter of the demand of possession dated 29th May, 2008 written by his client, it was pointed out that the lease would expire on 31st May, 2008 and that the rate of mesne profit should be Rs.3 lac a month after the expiry of the lease. Mr. Chatterjee submits that there is no substance in the contention of Mrs. Agarwal that by subsequent notice, the earlier notices were revoked. Mr. Chatterjee contends that even if its assumed that the suit was filed on the basis of the last notice dated 1st August, 2008 asking the tenant to vacate with the expiry of 31st August, 2008, then th