Judgement

VENKATARAMIAH, J. :- The question involved in this case is whether the High Court of Calcutta was right in returning the plaint presented by the appellant for presentation to the proper Court under O. 7 R. 10 of the C. P. C., 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code).

2. The appellant is the owner of Flat No. 2 (now known as B), 7th Floor, Gem Building at 5/B, Russel Street, Calcutta. The said premises had been leased out in favour of the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,400/-. The respondent committed default in the payment of rent from the month of June, 1984. The appellant, therefore, served a notice on the respondent under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and S. 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) determining the tenancy with the expiry of the month of January, 1985 and called upon him to deliver possession of the premises. Upon failure of the respondent to hand over the vacant possession of the premises on the expiry of January, 1985 the appellant filed a suit in Suit No. 755 of 1985 on the Original Side of the High Court of Calcutta for recovery of possession of the premises and for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 11,200/- and of Rs. 78,000/- by way of mesne profits/ damages, claiming mesne prof its/damages at the rate of Rs. 7,800/- per month from 1st February, 1985 until 30th November, 1985. The appellant valued the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 1,06,000/- which was arrived at as follows

(i). For purpose of possession (12 times the monthly rent of Rs. 1400/-) - Rs. 16,800/-

(ii). For recovery of arrears of rent up to 31-1-1985. - Rs. 11,200/-

(iii). For recovery of mesne profits or damages at Rs.7,800/- per month from 1-2-1985 to 30-11-1985. - Rs. 78,000/-

Total: - Rs. 1,06,000/-

3. Any suit, the value of which was above Rs. 1,00,000/-, had to be filed in the High Court on its Original Side. Accordingly, the plaint was presented in the High Court after paying the necessary court-fee on the basis of the above valuation. After the respondent was served with the summons in the suit, he made an application before the High Court for taking the plaint off its file and for returning it to the appellant for filing the same in the proper Court. The respondent stated in the application that on a plain reading of the definition of the expression tenant in the Act, the respondent continued to be the tenant even after the termination of his contractual tenancy and did not become an unauthorised occupant of the accommodation and he was, therefore, liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 1,400/- per month till the date of the suit. He further stated that calculated on the above basis, the respondent would be liable to pay Rs. 14,000/- only by way of arrears of rent for the period between 1st February, 1985 and 30th November, 1985 instead of Rs. 78,000/-claimed by the appellant by way of mesne profits/damages for the said period. The respondent contended that the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction would be Rs. 42,000/- only and that the value of the suit being less than Rs. 1,00,000/- it had to be filed in the City Civil Court of Calcutta. The respondent, therefore, prayed that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court by virtue of S. 15 of the Code which provided that every suit should be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. The learned Judge on hearing the above application accepted the plea of the respondent that under the provisions of the Act the expression tenant included a person continuing in possession of the accommodation even after the termination of his contractual tenancy and on such termination the possession of tenant did not become wrongful. The learned Judge, therefore, held that the appellant was not entitled to claim mesne p