Usha Bagchi vs Pankaj Kumar Mitra

Ajoy Nath Ray, J.—This is an application for rejection of the plaint on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff, according to the plaint, has called the Defendant a licensee under the Plaintiff at a monthly licence fee of Rs. 8,000. Accordingly, u/s 7(vi)(b) of Court Fees Act the suit valuation should be one year''s licence fee which comes to only Rs. 96,000. Therefore, the Defendant submits, the valuation put for possession of the property at Rs. 10 lakhs is impermissible.

The exact words of Section 7(vi)(a) and (b) are relevant and those are set out below:

(vi) In a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property from:

(a) a trespasser, where no declaration of title to property is either prayed for or necessary for disposal of the suit -according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint subject to the provisions of Section 11.

(b) a licensee upon revocation or termination of his licence-

(i) where a licence fee is payable by the licensee in respect of the immovable property to which the suit refers - according to the amount of the licence fee of the immovable property payabnle for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint or

(ii) where no such licence fee is payable by the licensee - according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued on the plaint subject to the Provisions of Section 11.

The Plaintiffs contention is that the Plaintiff is entitled to value the plaint as in a suit against a trespasser under Clause (a) above.

Under Clause (b) the suit valuation as well as the valuation for jurisdiction would be the year''s licence fee payable for the year next preceding the presentation of the plaint. Where however the licence has been terminated and the suit is not immediately filed, it would be seen that the Defendant, at least in the eyes of the Plaintiff, no longer remains a licensee and thus no licence fee would be payable after termination of the licence irrespective of when the suit is atually filed. It is conceivable, therefore, that in some cases the licence fee payable for the year next before the date of presentation of the suit, according to the Plaintiff, will be nil. It cannot be that under such circumstances the Plaintiff is compelled to value the suit at rupees ''nil''.

The true interpretation and harmonious construction of these two els. (a) and (b) would be that in cases where licence has been terminated and the licensee, according to the Plaintiff, has become a trespasser, a choice is open to the Plaintiff to value the suit either under Clause (a) or under Clause (b) provided no absurd or mala fide valuation is arrived at by the Plaintiff on either of these two bases whichever might be chosen.

I do not find that the valuation of Rs. 10 lakhs in relation to the property is straightway to be condemned as either arbitrary or mala fide or an improper choice of valuation by the Plaintiff of which the Court cannot take any notice.

Under these circumstances the question of rejection of the plaint at this stage does not arise.

There will be no order on this application.

Costs of this application will be costs in the cause.

The Learned Counsel for the Defendant prays for time to file the Written Statement. Time is extended till two weeks after the reopening after the Christmas Vacation.