The provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not allow for a partial rejection of the plaint.

Ruma Pal, J.

The order dated 21st November, 1994, passed by this Court on the application of the defendant No.2 for taking the plaint off the file, is recalled. The application was heard and the order was passed without hearing the submission of the plaintiffs who were not represented by Counsel when the hearing was going on. At the time when the order was being dictated, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs appeared and prayed for leave to make submissions at that stage This Court was of the view that the order would stand unless the plaintiffs could convince the Court that the said order had been wrongly passed. It appears now that this would unnecessarily complicate the matter as it would require hearing in a matter which has already been technically disposed of.

2. Accordingly, the matter is treated on the Day's List and is disposed of after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard.

3. At today's hearing it was argued that the suit is liable to be rejected basically on three grounds. The first ground is that one of the grounds on which the suit has been filed were maintainable in law. The second ground is that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of causes of action and in the absence of leave having been obtained under Order 2 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure the suit was liable to be rejected. The third ground is that the suit had been grossly over-valued. It is said that the claim for mesne profits was not sustainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Chanderkali Bali vs. J. S. Thakur, reported in AIR 1977 SC 2262. It is therefore stated that the addition of mesne profits to the claim of the plaintiff for the purpose of valuation was wrong. It is submitted that the plaintiff could in a suit for eviction only value the suit on the basis of the monthly rent for the last 12 months. Reliance has been placed on section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act read with section 7 sub-clause 13(d) of the Court Fees Act, 1970. Reference has also been made to the decision of this Court reported in 69 CWN 469.

4. It has also been argued that the other grounds on which the suit has been valued at over Rs. 10 lakhs should not be accepted by this Court. It is said that the entire property had been purchased in 1991 @ Rs. 7.5 lakhs. In 1993 the suit had been filed only in respect of a portion of the premises. According to the defendant No.2 the claim of the value of the suit premises at over Rs. 10 lakhs was in circumstances absurd. The valuation of the damages has also been challenged on the ground that it is absurd valuation.

5. In support of the first contention it has been argued by the defendant No. 2 that the plaint had been filed on the basis of four grounds. (a) reasonable requirement; (b) default in making payment of rent; (c) wrongful subletting or transfer of the demise premises; and (d) violation of clauses on o an P of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act under section 13(1)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. As far as the ground (a) is concerned it is said that the claim is barred under section 13(3A) of the Tenancy Act which prohibits the institution of any suit on the ground of reasonable requirement within three years of the date Of purchase. In this case the suit premises had been purchased admittedly on June, 11 1991 and suit had been filed on September 1, 1993 within the prohibited period.

6. As far as ground (b) is concerned it is said that no suit could lie for the purposes of default in payment of rent in view of the fact that the defendant No.2 had already made an application under section 17(2) of the Tenancy Act and that application is still pending.

7. With regard to grounds (c) and (d) it has been conceded by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant No 2 that these are really a question of fact and could not be argued in support of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 However, it was urged by a Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant No. 2 that u