SMT. NANDITA BOSE versus RATANLAL NAHATA

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 792 · Decided: 04-08-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. NANDITA BOSE 
v. 
RAT ANLAL NAHATA 
AUGUST 4, 1987 
B 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
-i 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-R. 10, 0. 7-Power to return plaint • 
at any stage of suit for presentation to the proper Court cannot be 
exercised at the preliminary stage by prejudging an issue arising in the 
suit. 
c 
Upon the respondent-tenant committing default In payment of 
rent from June, 1984, the appellant landlady, after serving a notice 
r 
determining the tenancy with effect from 31st January, 1985 and calling 
upon him lo deliver possession of the premises in question, filed a suit in 
D 
the High Court for recovery of possession, arrears of rent at the rate of 
Rs.1,400 per month and mesne profits/damages at the rate of Rs. 7 ,800 
per month from the date of termination of the tenancy. The respondent 
~ 
filed an application praying that the plaint be taken off from the file of 
the High- Court and r~turned to the appellant for filing the same in the 
proper Court. The High Court, accepting the plea of the respondent 
that under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 
E 
1956, the expression 'tenant' included a person continuing in possession 
of the accommocjation even after the termination of his contractual 
tenancy and on such termination the possession of a tenant did not ~--
become wrongful, held that the appellant was not entitled to claim 
mesne profits/damages aggregating to Rs. 78,000 and therefore, the suit 
"' 
should have been valued at Rs.42,000 and, since no suit the value of 
F 
which was less than Rupees one lakh could have been ftled in the High 
Court, directed that the plaint be returned to the appellant for presen-
talion to the proper Court. 
Allowing the appeal and directing the High Court to proceed with 
., 
the hearing of the suit. 
G 
)... 
HELD: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the High 
Court was in error in prejudging the issue relating to the right of the 
appellant to claim mesne profits/damages and in directing that the 
plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court. [797C-D] 
H 
(I) The principles which regulate the pecuniary jurisdiction of 
792 
NANDITA v. RATANLAL 
793 
civil courts are well-settled. Ordinarily, the valuation of a suit depends 
upon the reliefs claimed therein and the plaintiff's valuation in his 
plaint determines the Court in which it can be presented. Under s. 15, 
C.P.C., every plaint should be instituted in the Court of the lowest 
grade competent to try it. The Court always has the jurisdiction to 
prevent the abuse of the process of law and the plaintiff cannot invoke 
the jurisdiction of a Court by either grossly over-valuing or grossly 
under-valuing a suit. Under r. 10 of 0.7, C.P.C., the plaint can be 
returned at any stage of the suit for presentation to the Court in which 
the suit should have been instituted. [796A-C] 
(ii) In the instant case the appellant has claimed a decree for 
A 
B 
Rs. 78,000 for the period between 1st February, 1985 and 30th 
C 
November, 1985 on the footing that the respondent's possession was 
unauthorised or illegal and l!e was liable to pay mesne profits or 
damages. The question whether the appellant would be entitled to a 
decree for mesne profits/damages at the rate of Rs. 7 ,800 per month or 
at any other rate after the termination of the tenancy is a matter which 
bas to be decided in the suit and it could not have been disposed of at a 
D 
preliminary stage even before the trial had commenced. That question 
bas to be decided at the conclusion of the trial along with other issues 
arising in the suit. Having regard to some of the decisions on which 
reliance is placed by the appellant in the course of the appeal, the 
matter is not free from doubt and the claim for mesne profits/damages 
is neither palpably absurd nor imaginary. It needs judicial cons!-
E 
deration. [7960-G] 
(iii) The acceptance of the view put forward .by the respondent 
may lead to encouraging a tenant who has forfeited his right to the 
tenancy to carry on a dilatory litigation without compensating the land-
lord suitably for the loss suffered by him on account of the unreasonable 
F 
deprivation of the possession of his premises over a long period until he 
is able to get possession of the premises through the Court. It cannot, 
therefore, be stated at this stage that the claim for mesne profits/ 
damages had been made without good faith and with the sole object of 
instit

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.