Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • K.J. John
  • R.K. Lala
Judges
  • Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • K.J. John
  • R.K. Lala
Judges
  • Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Concise Analytical Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

On 11 October 1974 Srimati Sukla Chowdhury (the plaintiff), claiming to be owner of premises No. 5, Kyd Street, Calcutta, instituted Suit No. 491 of 1974 against Miss Manjolyn Tweedie and Miss Shamin Tweedie (defendants Nos. 1 and 2). The plaintiff alleged that pursuant to an agreement dated 14 March 1973 (entered at the request of the defendants' mother, Mrs. Sofie Tweedie) the plaintiff let one room with bathroom and kitchen on the south-east corner of the ground floor to the defendants for a monthly rent of Rs. 225, payable on the 6th of every month. The agreement included conditions (exclusive possession of the room, return to the flat by 10 P.M., no nuisance or illegal/immoral activities, and vacating the flat upon the plaintiff's request).

The plaintiff alleged that after taking possession the defendants created nuisances and engaged in alleged immoral activities and failed to pay rent from February 1974 through the institution of the suit (more than four months' default within twelve months), rendering them liable for eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The plaint sought arrears of rent (claimed as Rs. 1,800), mesne profits (Rs. 90), interest (12% p.a. as damages), and a decree for possession and mesne profits.

By order dated 24 March 1975 the plaint was amended to add defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Defendant No. 3 was the mother of the original two defendants and defendant No. 4 her husband. The amended plaint alleged that defendants Nos. 3–5 wrongfully occupied a portion of the premises as trespassers in violation of the agreement and sought possession from them as well. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 54,000 for jurisdictional purposes.

Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 applied to the Court seeking several reliefs: return of the plaint to present it to a proper court (contending lack of landlord-tenant relationship and improper valuation/jurisdiction), alternatively relief under Section 17(2) and Section 17(2-A)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (time to deposit or pay rent in instalments), and time to seek particulars and file written statement.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to entertain Suit No. 491 of 1974 in light of statutory valuation and amendments to the relevant court jurisdictional provisions (i.e., whether the suit's value exceeded Rs. 50,000 so as to confer jurisdiction on the High Court).
  2. Whether defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to alternative relief under Section 17(2) and Section 17(2-A)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act permitting payment/deposit of rent in instalments or extension of time.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Contentions

  • The plaintiff alleged a valid letting from 14 March 1973 and delivery of possession to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.
  • The plaintiff alleged the defendants committed acts of nuisance and immoral activities and defaulted in rent from February 1974, making them liable to eviction under the Act.
  • After amendment, the plaintiff asserted that defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 occupied part of the premises as trespassers and therefore sought possession from them as well.
  • The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 54,000 for jurisdictional purposes, relying on the valuation rules applicable to recovery against trespassers where the relief sought determines the value for court-fees and jurisdiction.

Defendants' Contentions (as set out in the application)

  • Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contended there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and them and that the suit did not disclose material particulars, constituting an abuse of process and being not maintainable.
  • They alleged the legal tenant was their mother (defendant No. 3), who was regularly depositing rent with the Rent Controller, Calcutta, since February 1974.
  • They argued that in any view the value of the suit would be only Rs. 4,590 (per their calculation), which would fall outside the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 7(xiii)(d) of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970 read with the Suits Valuation Act; hence the plaint should be returned to be presented to the proper court.
  • Alternatively, they sought relief under Section 17(2) and Section 17(2-A)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act to allow time to deposit/pay rent in instalments and to obtain particulars and file a written statement.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Girdharlal Govindji v. Pravin Chandra Ochhavlal, (1965) 69 Cal WN 469 Cited by applicants (counsel) to support the contention regarding suit valuation/competency under earlier law (argument that the decision's ratio would be affected by the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970). The Court recorded counsel's reliance on this decision and the contention about its applicability under the new Act but did not accept the applicants' jurisdictional challenge; the Court did not apply this precedent to dismiss the suit.
Ramdayee v. Dhanraj, AIR 1972 Cal 313 Stands for the proposition that a suit combining recovery of possession against a tenant in respect of one schedule of premises and possession/declaration for another schedule against other defendants is not bad for multifariousness where common questions of fact and law arise. The Court relied on this decision to support the proposition that causes of action based on the same set of facts can be united and that uniting them does not render the suit incompetent for multifariousness.
B.N.W. Railway v. Sadram, AIR 1922 Cal 500 Cited by counsel in support of an argument (exact principle invoked by counsel not elaborated in the text). The Court stated the ratio of this decision was not applicable to the problem before it and therefore did not discuss the decision in detail.
Sri Ram v. Bindeshwari, AIR 1951 Pat 364 Cited by counsel in support of an argument (exact principle invoked by counsel not elaborated in the text). The Court found this decision's ratio not applicable to the problem at hand and declined to discuss it in detail.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded in distinct steps addressing jurisdiction and the alternative relief claimed under the Tenancy Act:

  1. Jurisdictional threshold: The Court first observed that amendments to the Calcutta City Civil and Sessions Courts Acts (by Section 5 of the City Civil and Sessions Courts (Amendment) Act, 1969) altered the High Court's civil jurisdiction so that the High Court may entertain a suit only if the value of the suit exceeds Rs. 50,000. Earlier the threshold included the value of premises (Rs. 10,000), but after amendment the value of premises is no longer relevant — only the value of the suit matters.
  2. Valuation rules applicable to tenancy and trespass: The Court explained the established rule that a notional valuation of a suit for ejectment of a tenant, based on the preceding 12 months' rent (Court-fees Act, 1870), is used for computing court-fees and that notional valuation and jurisdictional valuation coincide under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1877. Consequently, if the suit were solely against tenants, valuation by 12 months' rent would likely produce a figure far below Rs. 50,000 and the High Court would lack jurisdiction.
  3. Distinction for suits against trespassers: The Court then identified that under Section 7(vi)(a) of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970, where recovery of possession is sought against a trespasser and no declaration of title is prayed for or necessary, the value for court-fees (and hence for jurisdiction) is the amount to which relief is sought as valued in the plaint (subject to Section 11). In the present case the plaint, after amendment to include trespassers, valued the suit at Rs. 54,000.
  4. Effect of amendment and aggregate valuation: The Court held that the amendment adding claims against defendants Nos. 3–5 on the same set of facts was permissible under Order 2, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (which permits uniting several causes of action against the same defendant(s) and provides that jurisdiction depends on the aggregate value of subject-matters when causes of action are united). Because the causes of action against tenants and trespassers arose from the same facts, the aggregate value (as claimed) exceeded Rs. 54,000, and the amendment related back to the date of institution; therefore the High Court had jurisdiction at the inception of the suit.
  5. Precedential arguments considered and rejected for the purpose: The Court noted counsel's reliance on prior decisions (including Girdharlal Govindji v. Pravin Chandra Ochhavlal) but found those decisions (and others cited by counsel) not determinative of the specific problem before it and did not accept the contention that the suit was incompetent for jurisdictional reasons.
  6. Alternative relief under Section 17(2) and 17(2-A)(b): Turning to the request for relief permitting the tenant to deposit/pay rent in instalments or for extension, the Court noted that Section 17(2-A)(b) permits such relief having regard to the tenant's circumstances. The Court observed that the petitioners had not pleaded or specified any circumstances entitling them to such discretionary relief. Because no circumstances were stated in support of the alternative relief, the Court concluded the defendants were not entitled to that relief.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Application dismissed.

Direct consequences and implications:

  • The Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain Suit No. 491 of 1974 because, after amendment to include trespassers and on the basis of the valuation rule in Section 7(vi)(a) of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970 together with Order 2, Rule 3, the aggregate value of the suit as claimed in the plaint exceeded Rs. 50,000.
  • The defendants' primary prayer — that the plaint be returned for presentation to a lower court on jurisdictional grounds — failed.
  • The defendants' alternative prayer for relief under Section 17(2) and Section 17(2-A)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (permission to deposit/pay rent in instalments or obtain an extension) was refused because the petition did not plead circumstances entitling them to the discretionary relief envisaged by those provisions.
  • Costs were ordered to be "cost in the cause" and the order was certified for counsel.
  • The opinion does not announce or claim to set any novel legal precedent beyond the application of existing statutory valuation rules and Order 2, Rule 3 to the facts; the immediate effect is the dismissal of the application and maintenance of the suit in the High Court.

Certified for counsel. Application dismissed.

Show full summary ...

    Sm. Sukla Chowdhury v. Miss Manjolyn Tweedie And Another

    1. On the 11th of October, 1974 Srimati Sukla Chowdhury claiming to be the owner of premises No. 5, Kyd Street, Calcutta instituted Suit No. 491 of 1974 against the two defendants originally, namely, Miss Manjolyn Tweedie and Miss Shamin Tweedie. It is the case of the plaintiff that on or abut 14th March, 1973 at the request of one Mrs. Sofie Tweedie, mother of the said defendants the plaintiff agreed to let out one room attached with bath room and the kitchen on the south-east comer of the ground floor of premises No. 5, Kyd Street, Calcutta to the said defendants on certain terms, inter alia, contained in paragraph 1 of the plaint filed. The said terms permitted the said defendants only to stay and occupy the said room and provided that the defendants should pay Rs. 225/- per month as rent on the 6th of every month according to English calendar, and the said defendants would have exclusive control and possession of the said room. It is further stipulated that the said defendants would return to the flat by 10 P.M every night and that they should not create any nuisance nor carry on any illegal or immoral activities in the said flat. It was also stipulated that the said defendants would leave the flat when requested to do so by the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that pursuant to the agreement dated the 14th of March, 1973 the plaintiff delivered possession of the portion of the ground floor of the south-east corner of premises No. 5, Kyd Street, Calcutta. The said defendants took possession of the said flat and became a monthly tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Then a few days after taking possession of the portion of the said premises, the defendants started coming late and creating nuisance and certain alleged acts of nuisance and alleged immoral activities are mentioned in the plaint. It is further stated that the said defendants failed and neglected to pay to the plaintiff rent since February, 1974 until the institution of the suit, as a result whereof, according to the plaintiff, the said defendants are defaulters for more than four months in the course of twelve months and became liable to be evicted from the portion of the said premises under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. It is alleged that on the 1st December, 1973 the said defendants informed the plaintiff that they would vacate the flat on the expiry of the month of December, 1973, but in spite thereof they have not vacated the said premises. It is further alleged that they are staying in the said portion of the flat in violation of the terms of the agreement as trespassers. The plaintiff stated that the said defendants violated the provisions of Cl. (m), Cl. (o) and Cl. (h) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as a result whereof the said defendants and each of them became liable to be evicted from the said premises. The plaintiff has claimed rent @ Rupees 225/- per month from February, 1974 to September, 1974. The plaintiff has further claimed interest @ 12 per cent, per annum on the rent due from the respective due dates as and by way of damages. In the premises, the plaintiff has claimed Rs. 1,800/- on account of arrears of rent and Rs. 90/- on account of mesne profits and possession. The plaintiff has claimed decree for possession and mesne profits as mentioned in the plaint.

    2. After the institution of the suit the plaintiff made an application for amendment and by an order passed by this Court on the 24th of March, 1975, the plaint has been amended by adding defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as parties to the suit. Defendant No. 3 is the mother of the first two defendants and defendant No. 4 is the husband of the said defendant No. 3. It is stated in the amended plaint that defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have wrongfully and illegally occupied a portion of the said premises as trespassers in violation of the agreement as aforesaid between the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff has therefore claimed also possession from the said defendants. The plaintiff has valued the portion of the said premises and the suit at Rs. 54,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction. This is an application by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for several reliefs, namely - that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court, alternatively relief be given under Section 17(2) and 17 (2-A) (b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, time be allowed to ask for particulars and file the written statement. In this petition the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have set out the fact and have alleged that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants and that the suit according to the said defendants, did not disclose material particulars and was a gross abuse of the process of the court and was not maintainable in law. It is further stated that the legal tenant was the mother of the defendants who was regularly depositing the rent with the Rent Controller, Calcutta since February, 1974. It is further stated that this Court has no jurisdiction taking into account the provisions of Section 7(xiii)(d) of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970 read with Suits Valuation Act. According to the said petitioners the value of the suit would be Rs. 4590/- and inasmuch as the same was not within the jurisdiction of this Court, this plaint should be returned. In the alternative, it has been stated that this application should be treated as an application for extension of time for the deposit or payment of the amount as determined by this Court under Section 17(2) and Section 17 (2-A) (b) of the Act.

    3. The first question, therefore, is whether the suit is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Under the Calcutta City Civil and Sessions Courts Acts, after the amendment effected by Section 5 of the City Civil and Sessions Courts (Amendment) Act, 1969, the High Court will have only the jurisdiction to entertain the suit if the value of the suit exceded Rs. 50,000/-. Prior to the amendment it was provided that the jurisdiction would attract provided the value of the suit or value of the premises exceeded Rupees 10,000/-. Now by the amendment the value of the premises is no longer relevant. What is relevant is the value of the suit

    4. Under Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, read with the schedule thereto, the value of the suit must exceed Rs. 50,000/- only then the High Court will have jurisdiction to try and entertain the same.

    5. The notional valuation of a suit for ejecting a tenant on the basis of preceding 12 months' rent under the Court-feet Act, 1870 is for computation of the Court-fees payable. That notional value and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1877. But the Court-fees Act is also applicable in Calcutta High Court now. Therefore, if it was a suit against the tenant, then the relevant question would have been the value of the suit which would have been valued on the basis of 12 months' rent and which in this case would be far below Rs. 50,000/- and this Court will not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. But under Section 7(vi)(a) of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970 for recovery of possession of the immovable property against a trespasser where no declaration of title to property is either prayed for or necessary, value of the suit for court-fees purposes must be the amount to which relief is sought and as valued in the plaint subject to the provisions of Section 11 of the said Act. Now the value of the suit has been valued in this case in the plaint at Rupees 54,000/-. As mentioned hereinbefore, the plaint was originally against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis that they were the tenants of the plaintiff. That cause of action has subsequently been amended to include the defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 on the basis that they are trespassers and therefore, recovery in this suit based on the same set of circumstances both against the tenants as well as against the trespassers. The question is in such a case what would be the basis of valuation. Counsel for the applicant contended before me that the suit should be considered as against the original defendant and should be held to be incompetent. He drew my attention to the decision in the case of Girdharlal Govindji v. Pravin Chandra Ochhavlal, (1965) 69 Cal WN 469 and contended that in view of The West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970 the ratio of the said decision would not be applicable any longer. In this connection reliance may be placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Ramdayee v. Dhanraj, AIR 1972 Cal 313 where it was held that where a suit was filed for recovery of possession of Schedule A premises against tenant defendant No. 1 and for possession of B Schedule premises against defendants 1 and 2 as a trespasser for a declaration of title in repect of B Schedule premises and for damages, the suit was not bad for multifariousness as common questions of fact and law would arise if suits in respect of A and B Schedules were filed separately. Therefore, in this connection reference may be made to the provisions of Order 2, Rule 3(1) which provides the plaintiff might unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants might unite such causes of action in the same suit. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 provides that where causes of action are united the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit should depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of the institution of the suit.

    6. I am herefore of the opinion that the combination of the several causes of actions against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 on the same set of facts was permissible as was done by the amendment of the plaint because the causes of action against these defendants are on the same set of facts. If that is the position then by virtue of Order 2, Rule 3 the jurisdiction of the Court will depend on the amount of value of the aggregate subject-matter of the suit. Now the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matter of the suit after the amendment would be over Rs. 54,000/- as claimed by the plaintiff by virtue of Section 7(vi)(a) of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970. After the amendment of the plaint the amendment would relate back to the date of the institution of the suit and on that date therefore the Court would have jurisdiction. In the premises I am unable to accept the contention that this suit is not maintainable on the ground of jurisdiction. Counsel for the applicant drew my attention to the decision in the cases of B.N.W Railway v. Sadram, AIR 1922 Cal 500 and in Sri Ram v. Bindeshwari, AIR 1951 Pat 364. In my view the ratio of the said decisions are not applicable to the problem that I have to decide in this case. In the premises I need not discuss the said decisions in detail. The first prayer of the petition therefore fails.

    7. The second prayer of the petition is that relief be given under Section 17(2) and under Section 17 (2-A) (b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Under sub-clause (b) of Section 2-A of Section 17 it is stated having regard to the circumstances of the tenant the Court might permit the tenant to deposit or pay rent in such instalments as the Court might fix. Therefore it is necessary to determine in order to entitle to this right there must be circumstances entitling the tenant to obtain such relief. No circumstances indeed have been mentioned in the petition. In the premises I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to alternative relief as asked for. In the premises this application fails. The application is dismissed. Costs cost in the cause. Certified for counsel.

    8. Application dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Sm. Sukla Chowdhury v. Miss Manjolyn Tweedie And Another
    (Apr 28, 1975)