The court clarified that the purchase value of the suit property cannot be the sole criterion to revise the value of the relief of counter-claim in a suit for eviction of a gratuitous licensee.

JUDGMENT

Biswajitbasu, J. - The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants in a suit for permanent injunction being Title Suit No. 33 of 2017 pending before the Additional Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Krishnanagar, District - Nadia and is directed against the Order No. 26 dated March 12, 2019.

2. The petitioners in the said suit by way of counter-claim inter alia have prayed for a decree of eviction of the opposite parties from the suit property, describing them as gratuitous licensees under them.

3. The petitioners have valued their said relief of counter-claim at Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only), the plaintiffs/opposite parties disputing the said value filed an application praying assessment of actual valuation of the said counter-claim and determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Trial Judge to entertain such counter-claim.

4. The learned Trial judge held an inquiry in terms of Section 11 of the West Bengal Court-fees Act of 1970(hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1970' in short) and by the order impugned has revised the valuation of the said counter-claim at Rs. 16,23,857/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Seven). The learned Trial Judge relied on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shambhu Nath Singh and Ors. v. Shankarananda Banerjee, (1981) 1 CalLJ 316 to hold that in the instant case, there is an objective standard of valuation as in paragraph 10 of the written statement-cum-counter-claim, the defendants have claimed that they have purchased the suit property along some non-suit property at a total price of Rs. 37,89,000/-(Rupees thirty seven lakh eighty nine thousand only). Thus, based on the said objective standard the learned Trial Judge assessed the value of the said counter-claim at the aforesaid rate and returned the said counter-claim to the petitioner to be filed as a separate suit in the appropriate Court having jurisdiction.

5. Mr. Biswarup Biswas learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the opposite parties are licensees under the petitioners without license fees as such the petitioners are entitled to value their relief of recovery of possession of the suit property from the opposite parties in terms of Section 7(vi)(b)(ii) of the said Act of 1970 and they have accordingly valued their said relief at Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand). The value of the said relief so put in by the petitioners cannot be revised on the basis of the market value of the suit property. Mr. Biswas to fortify his said argument places reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of CHANDI CHARAN DAS v. SMT. SUSHILA BALA DASI, (1955) AIR Calcutta 144 and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of MAN MOHAN KHEMKA v. DR. KAILASH KUMAR SHARMA, (1984) 1 CalHN 121 .

6. Mr. Durga Shankar Mallick learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties on the other hand strongly places reliance on the case of Shambhu Nath Singh's case (supra) to contend that the disclosed value of the suit property is the only available objective standard to ascertain the correct valuation of the relief of the said counter-claim as such, the learned Trial Judge has rightly revised the said valuation on the basis of the said market value of the suit property. Mr. Mallick to give further strength to his said submission places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of TARAI TEA Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors., (1979) AIR Calcutta 84 and the two other decisions of the learned Single Judges of this Court in the case of Smt. Nilima Bose v. Santosh Kumar Ghosh, (1997) AIR Calcutta 202 and in the case of Rampuria Industries and Investments Ltd. v. Nellimarla Jute Mills Co. Ltd., (1997) AIR Calcutta 366 . Mr. Mallick thereafte