A counter-claim must meet the pecuniary jurisdiction requirements of the Court to be maintainable; in this case, it was below the threshold, rendering it invalid.

JUDGMENT :

1. An order of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated August 29, 2023, in G.A.No. 4 of 2023, passed in connection with CS No. 184 of 1989, is under challenge in the instant appeal. G.A.No. 4 of 2023 was an application filed by the appellant/plaintiff, praying for rejection of the counter-claim of the defendant No. 6(x) in the suit. Several grounds were pleaded in the application as above to support the prayer made therein including a ground, that the counter-claim by the said defendant, is bellow the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The other grounds pleaded inter alia are, that the counter-claim did not disclose any cause of action and the same is barred by law.

2. After hearing the parties the Hon’ble Single Judge has dismissed G.A.No. 4 of 2023 on merit and placed the suit on board for framing of the issues.

3. Thus being aggrieved the plaintiff/appellant has filed the instant appeal.

4. The factual back ground leading to filing of this appeal may be elaborated a little in the following manner:

5. The suit by the appellant/plaintiff being CS No. 184 of 1989 is for a decree for specific performance of the deed of lease dated March 14, 1938, to be precise, clause No. 1V(10) of the same. According to the plaintiff, after determination of the lease due to expiry of the period of validity of the said lease deed and in terms of clause No. 1V(10) thereof, the validity of the same is to be extended for a term of 31 years, commencing from March 16, 1989, at a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant/plaintiff has sought for the relief in the suit that a decree of declaration be passed, directing that the plaintiff is entitled to continue as the lessee of the premises for a term of 31 years commencing from March 16, 1989, at a monthly rent of. Rs. 10,000/-.

6. The respondent/defendant’s written statement and counter claim is that admittedly the period of lease and operation of the lease deed, have expired. Hence, his prayer is for eviction of the appellant/plaintiff. Also that, after expiry of the lease period, the said defendant has taken possession of the property, applied for sanction of plan and started construction over the area in the premises for which the plan has been sanctioned by the competent authority. The defendant submitted about depositing adequate court fees along with the written statement and counter claim of him.

7. Hence, followed the application by the plaintiff/appellant being G.A.No. 4 of 2023 to pray for rejection of the counter-claim of the defendant, which was dismissed by the Court, vide the impugned order as mentioned above.

8. The plaintiff/appellant is represented by Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, learned senior counsel. The defendant No. 6(x) is represented by Mr. A. C. Kar, learned senior counsel.

9. Mr. Ghosh, learned senior counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has submitted that in terms of the valuation of the counter- claim filed by the said respondent/defendant, the same ought not to have been considered by the Court, to be maintainable before it. That the counter-claim has been valued at Rs. 1,20,000/- (one lac and twenty thousand only) under section 7(xiii) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act 1970, which is much less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, as prevailing on the date of filing of the counter-claim, that is Rs. 10,00,000/- (ten lacs only). That the Hon’ble Single Judge has erred in not considering that due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, the counter-claim of the defendant would not be maintainable before the High Court.

10. It has further been stated that the appellant/plaintiff has been rendering property rent to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month, since after expiry of the validity period of the lease. The same has been accepted by the respondent/defendant for a considerable period of time and most importantly, without any protest. Hence for the said reason, if not in the capacity of a lessee, the appellant/plaintiff has acquired the right of possession, in its capacity as a tenant in t