IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Sugato Majumdar CS/317/2003 THE CALCUTTA GUJARATI EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR.

VS BUDGE BUDGE COMPANY LTD For the Plaintiffs : Ms. Noelle Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Prithwish Roy Chowdhury, Adv.

Mr. Dipak Dey, Adv.

For the Defendant : Mr. Moloy Kumar Ghosh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sakya Sen, Adv.

Ms. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.

Mr. Atish Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Tanmoy Sett, Adv.

Ms. Antara Dey, Adv.

Hearing concluded on : 20/11/2024 Judgment on : 13/12/2024 Sugato Majumdar, J.:

This is a suit for eviction and recovery of possession, and mesne profit.

The sum and substance of the plaint case is as follows:-

i) The Plaintiff no. 1 is a society registered under the West Bengal Society Registration Act, 1860 having its registered office at 29, Pollock Street, Kolkata – 700001. The Plaintiff no. 2 is the Secretary of the Plaintiff no. 1. The Defendant is a company registered under the Companies‘ Act, 1956 having its registered officer at 16A, Brabourne Road, Kolkata – 700001.

ii) In terms of an agreement dated 29.10.1973, the entire 9^th floor of the building standing on 16A, Brabourne Road, Kolkata – 700001 (also known as Biplabi Troilakhya Maharaj Sarani) was let out to the Defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.11,025/-. This is the suit premises. Subsequently, the Defendant paid such monthly rent along with property tax at a rate of Rs.385.88p. and surcharge at a rate of Rs.1378.38p. aggregating to Rs.12,789.26p. per month.

iii) The Defendant defaulted in payment of rent. The Plaintiffs served upon the Defendant statutory notice under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 determining the tenancy and instituted Ejectment Suit No. 419 of 1992 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta. Since the suit was not heard, the Plaintiffs filed an application on or about 24/03/2003 for withdrawal of the suit. In terms of the Order No. 89 dated 08/04/2003, the Learned 7^th Bench of the City Civil Court was pleased to dismiss the suit. In the withdrawal application it was categorically stated by the Plaintiffs that they did not want to proceed with the suit under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

iv) After withdrawal of the suit the Defendant paid rent to the Plaintiffs at the old rate from the months of April to August 2003.

v) The Plaintiffs terminated the tenancy of the Defendant in terms of a notice dated 05/07/2003, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, written and communicated by the Learned Lawyer of the Plaintiffs. The tenancy of the Defendant stood terminated with the end of the month of August 2003.

vi) The Defendant, in spite of termination of the tenancy failed to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property, continued possession and became a trespasser in the suit premises with effect from 01/09/2003.

The Defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement denying all the allegations made in the plaint. Contentions of the Defendant may be summarized as follow:

a) The first defense of the Defendant is that the suit is deliberately overvalued to bring the same within pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. It is contended that sometime in the month of April 2003 the Plaintiffs, in terms of the letter dated 24/04/2003, called upon the Defendant to enhance the monthly rent to Rs.73,500/- w.e.f the month of June 2003. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiffs instituted the instant suit valuing the same at Rs.11,02,500/- by allegedly claiming the said sum on account of alleged profit calculated upto 30/11/2003 at a rate of Rs.50/- per square feet. The purported claim of mesne profit is ex-facie absurd.

Valuation of the suit should be based on annual rent at a rate last payable under the provisions of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970.

On that basis the valuation should stand at Rs.1,53,394/- (Rs.12,782/- *12). This should be valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction under the Suit Valuation Act, 1887. In nutshel