IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Original Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

And

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

APOT 158 of 2024

With

EC 330 of 2023

Saha & Company

Vs.

Ram Nath Jhunjhunwala

&

APD 17 of 2023 CS 156 of 2017

Saha & Company

Vs.

Ram Nath Jhunjhunwala

For Appellant : Mr. Rishad Medora, Adv.

Mr. Abhirup Chakraborty, Adv.

Ms. Priyanka Mitra, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta Adv.

Mr. Biswaroop Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kr. Karmakar, Adv.

Hearing Concluded on : November 10, 2025 Judgment on : December 10, 2025

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. The defendant in a suit for eviction has preferred the instant appeal from the impugned judgement and decree dated April 12, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the

application of the plaintiff under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the defendant has contended that, the suit has been improperly valued by the plaintiff. He has contended that, due to overvaluation, the plaintiff has sought to attract the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court when, none exists.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the defendant has drawn the attention of the Court to the averments made in the plaint. He has referred to the reliefs prayed for in the plaint. He has contended that, the suit proceeds on the basis of the defendant not making over possession of the suit property on the expiry of the term of the lease.

4. Referring to Section 7 of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 and in particular to Section 7(xiii)(d) thereof, learned advocate appearing for the defendant has contended that, the suit was required to be valued on the basis of the amount of the rent of the immovable property to which the suit refers, payable for the next year before the date of presenting the plaint. In such circumstances, the plaintiff has deliberately overvalued the suit as the rent of immovable property concerned in the suit, payable for the next year before the date of the presentation of the plaint, was way less than Rs. 10 lakhs.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the defendant has contended that, on the expiry of the term of lease the defendant continues to remain as a tenant, albeit tenant at sufferance. He has referred to section 7 (xiii) (d) of the Act of 1970 and contended that, the definition of the tenant appearing therein is inclusive. At least, a tenant at sufferance has not been expressly excluded from the definition of tenant under such Section.

6. In support of the contention that, the present suit ought to have been valued in terms of Section 7 (xiii) (d) of the Act of 1970, learned advocate appearing for the defendant has relied upon 2000 Volume 2 Cal LJ 70 (Nellimarla Jute Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Rampuria Industries & Investments Ltd.) and 2004 Volume 13 Supreme Court Cases 448 (Nellimarla Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Rampuria Industries & Investments Ltd.)

7. Learned advocate appearing for the defendant has contended that, since the Court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try, entertain and determine the present suit, the learned Single Judge had erred in passing a decree for eviction and for calculation of the mesne profit.

8. Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff has contended that, the suit has been rightly valued under section 7 (v) of the Act of 1970.

9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff has contended that, there is a lease deed between the parties dated January 21, 1997 by which, plaintiff granted 21 years lease commencing from December 31, 1994 and expiring on January 1, 2016. By a notice dated October 5, 2015, plaintiff had called upon the defendant to vacate the subject premises and make over vacant and peaceful possession of the same after the expiry of the subject lease.

10. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff has contended that, after the expiry of the lease by efflux of time on January 1, 2016, the plaintiff filed a suit on July 15, 2017. The m