ivil Appeal No 1544 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 19
1986 of the Calcutta High Court in suit No 755 of 1985
794 SK Kapoor Ranjan Dev Surendra Dube and Mrs Indra Sawhney for the Appellant
LN Sinha and PP Singh for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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 Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code 
The appellant is the owner of Flat No 2 now known as F  7th Floor Gem Building at 5B Russel Street Calcut ta
The said premises had been leased out in favour of the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs 1400
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 section 106 of the and section 136 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 11200 and of Rs78000 by way of mesne profitsdamages claiming mesne profitsdamages at the rate of Rs7800 per month from 1st February 1985 until 30th November 1985
The appellant valued the suit for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs 106000 which was arrived at as follows i For purposes of possession Rs
16800  12 times the monthly rent of Rs 1400  ii For recovery of arrears of Rs11200 rent upto 311
1985 iii For recovery of mesne Rs 78000 profits or damages at Rs7800 per month from 12
1985 to 3011
1985 Total Rs
106000 795 Any suit the value of which was above Rs 100000 had to be filed in the High Court on its Original Side
Accord ingly 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 termi nation 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 1400 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 14000 only by way of arrears of rent for the period between 1st February 1985 and 30th November 1985 instead of Rs78000 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 Rs42000 only and that the value of the suit being less than Rs 100000 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 section 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 posses sion of the accommodation even after the termination of his contractual tenancy and on such termination the possession of a tenant did not become wrongful
The learned Judge therefore held that the appellant was not entitled to claim mesne profitsdamages at the rate of Rs7800 per month from 1st February 1985 to 30th November 1985 aggregating to Rs78000 but was entitled to recover Rs 14000 only at the rate of Rs 1400 per month in respect of that period
The learned Judge found that the suit should have been valued at Rs42000 and not at Rs 106000 and that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit
Accordingly the learned Judge directed that the plaint should be re turned to the appellant for presentation to the proper court
Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Judge the appellant has filed the above appeal by special leave before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
Under section 15 of the Code every plaint should be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it and if the value of the 796 suit was Rs42000 only it had to be filed in the City Civil Court of Calcutta and not on the Original Side of the High Court
The principles which regulate the pecuniary jurisdic tion of civil courts are wellsettled
Ordinarily the valua tion 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
It is also true that the plaintiff cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court by either grossly over valuing or grossly under valuing a suit
The Court always has the jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the process of law
Under rule 10 of Order 7 of the Code the plaint can be returned at any stage of the suit for presentation to the court in which the suit should have been instituted
The question for consideration in this case is whether in the present case the plaint has been grossly over valued with the object of bringing it within the juris diction of the High Court
When the suit is filed for the recovery of money the amount claimed has to be included in determining the value of the suit
In the instant case the appellant has claimed a decree for Rs78000 at the rate of Rs7800 per month for the period between 1st February 1985 and 30th November 1985 on the footing that the re spondent s possession was unauthorised or illegal and he was liable to pay mesne profits or damages
The question whether the appellant would be entitled to a decree for mesne prof its damages at the rate of Rs7800 per month or at any other rate after the termination of the tenancy is a matter which has to be decided in the suit
If ultimately it is found that the appellant is not entitled to get mesne prof its or damages for the period subsequent to 1st February 1985 and that she is only entitled to receive Rs 1400 per month the suit in respect of the claim over and above Rs 1400 per month will have to be dismissed
But the question whether she was entitled to claim mesne profits or damages in respect of the period subsequent to 1st February 1985 could not have been disposed of at a preliminary stage even before the trial had commenced
That question has 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 we are of the view that the matter is not free from doubt
The claim for mesne profits damages is neither palpably absurd nor imaginary
It needs judicial consideration
The acceptance of the view put forward by the respondent may lead to encouraging a tenant who has forfeit ed his right to the tenancy to carry on a dilatory litiga tion without compensating the landlord suitably for the loss suffered by him on account of the unreasonable deprivation of the possession of his premises over a long period until he is able to get possession of the premises through the Court
We cannot therefore state at this stage that the claim for 797 mesne profitsdamages had been made without good faith and with the sole object of instituting the said suit before the High Court of Calcutta even though it had no jurisdiction to try it
We do not agree with the submission made on behalf of the respondent that the appellant had dishonestly and intentionally inflated the value of the suit in order to invite the jurisdiction of a particular court which has no jurisdiction otherwise
 If mesne profitsdamages are found to be payable then the claim made at the rate of Rs7800 per month for a premises of the nature in question which is situated in Calcutta does not appear to be fanciful having regard to the prevailing situation
We however express no opinion on the actual amount that may be awarded as mesne profitsdamages in the event of the liability to pay it being established
We are of the view that on the facts and in the circum stances of the case the High Court was in error in prejudg ing the issue relating to the right of the appellant to claim mesne profitsdamages and in directing that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper court
We therefore set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct the High Court to proceed with the hearing of the suit
We also direct that the observations made by the learned Judge in the course of the order against which this appeal is filed regarding the right of the appellant to claim the mesne profitsdamages at the rate of Rs7800 per month shall not be binding on the parties and that the said question shall be decided afresh by the High Court in the course of the trial
We however express no opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the observations made by the learned Judge on the above question
The appeal is accordingly allowed
HLC Appeal allowed


Summary:
Upon the respondent tenant committing default in payment of rent from June 1984 the appellant landlady after serving a notice determining the tenancy with effect from 31st January 1985 and calling upon him to deliver posses sion of the premises in question filed a suit in the High Court for recovery of possession arrears of rent at the rate of Rs 1400 per month and mesne profitsdamages at the rate of Rs7800 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 returned 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 1956 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 a tenant did not become wrong ful held that the appellant was not entitled to claim mesne profitsdamages aggregating to Rs78000 and therefore the suit should have been valued at Rs42000 and since no suit the value of which was less than Rupees one lakh could have been filed in the High Court directed that the plaint be returned to the appellant for presentation to the proper Court
Allowing the appeal and directing the High Court to proceed with the hearing of the suit
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 profitsdamages and in directing that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court
797C D i The principles which regulate the pecuniary jurisdiction of 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 section 15 CPC every plaint should be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade compe tent 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 07 CPC 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 Rs78000 for the period between 1st February 1985 and 30th November 1985 on the footing that the re spondent s possession was unauthorised or illegal and he was liable to pay mesne profits or damages
The question whether the appellant would be entitled to a decree for mesne prof itsdamages at the rate of Rs7800 per month or at any other rate after the termination of the tenancy is a matter which has to be decided in the suit and it could not have been disposed of at a preliminary stage even before the trial had commenced
That question has 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 profitsdamages is neither palpably absurd nor imagi nary
It needs judicial consideration
796D G iii The acceptance of the view put forward by the respondent may lead to encouraging a tenant who has forfeit ed his right to the tenancy to carry on a dilatory litiga tion without compensating the landlord suitably for the loss suffered by him on account of the unreasonable 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 instituting the said suit before the High Court even though it had no jurisdic tion to try it
796G H 797A