Associated Traders and Engineers (P) Ltd. v. M. P. Works (P) Ltd. — 1975 DIGILAW 213 (CAL)

Judgment : Mookerjee J. :- M.P. Works Private Limited, opposite party in this Rule has instituted a suit against the present petitioner as defendant in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, inter alia, for ejectment and delivery of khas possession of the premises in suit and for mesne profits. It has also prayed for a decree for mesne profits from July 1, 1971. 2. The suit-premises is a godown situate in the ground floor of No. 6-B, Bentick Street, Calcutta in respect of which the present petitioner was a monthly tenant at a rental of Rs. 2350/- according to English Calendar (vide paragraph 1 of the plaint). According to the plaintiff-opposite party the defendant had made default in payment of rent from June, 1971 and the plaintiff had served a combined notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 and under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act upon the defendant petitioner directing it to deliver khas possession of the premises on the expiry of the month of October, 1971. For the purposes of jurisdiction and Court-fees the suit has been valued at Rs. 28,200/- for ejectment and Rs. 500/- for mesne profits tentatively (vide paragraph 8 of the plaint). 3. The defendant-petitioner is contesting the aforesaid suit and has filed its written statement. The petitioner also filed two separate petitions, one under Section 113 read with Order 46(1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the other in respect of the Court-fees payable on the plaint. 4. The learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, by the order impugned in this Rule has disposed of the said two petitions. The learned Chief Judge has declined to refer the case to this Court. According to the learned Chief Judge the schedule to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act has been amended by so far as the City Civil Court is concerned by the City Civil Court Amendment Act, 1969. He has further held that the plaint of the suit has been correctly valued and the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the instant suit. 5. Mr. Ray, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the City Civil Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the instant suit and the Original Side of this Court has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. Mr. 5. Mr. Ray, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the City Civil Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the instant suit and the Original Side of this Court has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. Mr. Ray has contended that the Schedule under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 as substituted by Section 2 of the City Civil Court Act and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1957 (West Bengal Act 27 of 1957) still remains operative. In other words, notwithstanding the amendment effected by the City Civil Court Act (Amendment Act, 1969), West Bengal Act 35 of 1969, the Schedule under Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act still remains unaltered. According to Mr. Ray, admittedly, both the value of the suit and the value of the premises of which the plaintiff-opposite party has prayed for recovery of possession exceed Rs. 10,000/- within the meaning of paragraph 1(1) of the said Schedule. Therefore, the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit which has been valued at Rs. 28,700/- for ejectment and mesne profits. 6. Mr. Ray has contended that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 is a special law on the subject of landlord and tenant of 'premises' within the meaning of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The City Civil Court Act is also a special Act conferring jurisdiction on an additional Civil Court established for trial of certain classes of civil suits. Therefore, the amendment of the City Civil Court Act conferring jurisdiction on the said Court can not affect the provisions of Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act read with the Schedule of the said Act relating to the forum for ejectment suits. 7. Having given our anxious consideration to the matter, we are unable to accept this contention made on behalf of the petitioner. 8. The Schedule B of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 as originally enacted provided that in case of premises situate within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court, when the rents payable per month were exceeding Rs. 500/- this Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction shall entertain ejectment suits. In all other cases, the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta would be competent to try ejectment suits. 500/- this Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction shall entertain ejectment suits. In all other cases, the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta would be competent to try ejectment suits. Thereafter, the West Bengal Legislautre enacted the City Civil Court Act, 1953 in order to establish an additional Civil Court for the City of Calcutta. The sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act, as originally enacted, provided that subject to provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) the City Court shall have jurisdiction and the High Court shall not have jurisdiction to try suits and proceedings of a civil nature not exceeding Rs. 10,000/- in value. Section 22 of the said Act provided for amendment of enactments specified in the second Schedule in the manner mentioned in the fourth column of the schedule. 9. The City Civil Court Act, 1953 was published in the Calcutta Gazette (Extra-ordinary) on the 1st September, 1953, but it was not brought into force till February 23, 1957. Therefore provisions of the said Act including Section 22 and Schedule II thereunder bad remained inoperative till Feb. 23, 1957. Presumably, therefore, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 which came into force on and from March 31, 1956 had originally re-enacted Schedule B of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 as the Schedule under Section 20 of the former Act. Thereafter, the West Bengal Legislature enacted the City Civil Court Act and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1957 for amending the City Civil Court Act, 1953 and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Section 2 of the said amending Act substituted in the Entry XII relating to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act in the second schedule in the following manner : "1956...XII...The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956...In the Schedule, in Clause (1), for sub-clauses (i) and (ii) and the proviso, the following shall be substituted, namely,- (i) Where the value of the suit or the value of the premises of which recovery of possession - is c1aimed does not exceed ten thousand rupees-to the City Civil Court as defined in the City Civil Court Act, 1953 (West Bengal Act XXI of 1953) ; (ii) Where the value of the suit exceeds ten thousand rupees-to the High Court at Calcutta. * * * *" The City Civil Court Act, 1969 amended City Civil Court Act, 1953, inter alia, by raising the pecuniary jurisdiction under Section 5(2) to Rs. 50,000/- in place of Rs. 10,000/-. Section 5 of the amending Act, 1969 substituted the entry relating to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act in the Schedule II of the City Civil Court Act, 1953 in the following manner : "1956. XII. The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956- In the Schedule, in Clause (1), for sub-clauses (1) and (ii) and the proviso, the following shall be substituted, namely :- (i) Where the value of the suit does not exceed fifty thousand rupees-to the City Civil Court as defined in the City Civil Court Act, 1953 (West Bengal Act XXI of 1953). (ii) Where the value of the suit exceeds fifty thousand rupees-to the High Court at Calcutta." 10. There is no substance in the contention that it was further necessary to pass a separate Act amending the Schedule under Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. In our view, Section 5 of the West Bengal Act 35 of 1969 bad already effected such amendment in the Schedule under Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Section 22 of the City Civil Court Act, 1953 is as follows : "22. Amendments to certain enactments. The enactments specified in the Second Schedule are hereby amended in their application to West Bengal to the extent and in the manner mentioned in the fourth column of such Schedule." These provisions were enacted by the West Bengal State Legislature to effect consequential amendments in the enactments specified in the Second Schedule of the Act in order to rule out inconsistencies and repugnancies, if any, between the City Civil Court Act, 1953 and other enact ments. The object of enacting Section 22 was to amend the Acts specified in the second schedule to avoid contrariety between the different Statutes, that is, between City Civil Court and other Statutes. It is not disputed that the West Bengal Legislature had legislative competence to amend the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and the City Civil Court Act, 1953. Thus, the Legislature by enacting Section 22 of the latter Act provided for the consequential amendments in the enactments mentioned in Schedule II of the said Act for achieving uniformity and consistency between different Statutes. Thus, the Legislature by enacting Section 22 of the latter Act provided for the consequential amendments in the enactments mentioned in Schedule II of the said Act for achieving uniformity and consistency between different Statutes. When Section 22 confers such express power of amendment of the Acts specified in the second schedule it is not necessary to deal with scope and effect of Section 21 of the City Civil Court Act and those of Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956. In view of such express provision for amendment provided in Section 22 of the City Civil Court Act in the matter of pecuniary Jurisdiction of different Courts to entertain ejectment suit no question of repugnancy between the two Acts, namely, the City Civil Court Act and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act arises. The West Bengal Legislature by amending the entry relating to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act in the Second Schedule of the City Civil Court Act has also amended the Schedule under Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Thereby the Schedule as amended by the West Bengal Act 27 of 1957 has been substituted by the New Schedule as inserted by the Act 35 of 1969. Incidentally, it may be pointed out that previously, the West Bengal Legislature by enacting the City Civil Court and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment). Act, 1957 had amended the Schedule under Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act in the same manner. Section 2 of the Amendment Act of 1957 had amended the fourth column of entry No. XII in the Second Schedule of the City Civil Court Act. 11. Mr. Banerjee, appearing on behalf of the opposite party, rightly pointed out that in this case the power of the State Legislature to amend the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is not disputed Therefore, it was open to the West Bengal State Legislature to select the particular mode of amending the schedule under Section 20 the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. In this case, the method chosen was by amending the entry XII of the Schedule II under Section 22 of the City Civil Court Act. In this connection, Mr. Banerjee has drawn our attention to pages 357 to 359 of Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edition, dealing with the different modes of amendment of legislation. In this case, the method chosen was by amending the entry XII of the Schedule II under Section 22 of the City Civil Court Act. In this connection, Mr. Banerjee has drawn our attention to pages 357 to 359 of Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edition, dealing with the different modes of amendment of legislation. We, accordingly, hold that the Schedule under Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act stands amended by Section 5 of Act 35 of 1969 which altered the entry No. XII in the Second Schedule of the said Act. 12. The (1) unreported decision of B.C. Mitra and S.C. Ghosh, JJ. in Appeal from Original Decree No. 220 of 1971 (Suit No. 3110 of 1968, Ram Murti Barry v. Subodh Kumar Ghosh) disposed of on August 3, 1964, which was relied upon by Mr. Ray, learned Advocate for the petitioner, is not at all relevant for decision of the points involved in the present Rule. The learned Judges in the said case interpreted the paragraph 1(i) of the Schedule under Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act as the same stood before the amendment of the Schedule by Section 5 of the Act 35 of 1969. Thus, B.C. Mitra J. in his judgment observed : "The controversy and debate with regard to jurisdiction, arise because of the use of the term 'value of the premises' in clause(1) of the Schedule, introduced by the Amending Act, 1957. The question is if the two phrases 'value of the suit', 'or the value of the premises' should be read disjunctively or conjunctively." Their Lordships for the reasons given in their judgment came to the conclution that the said clause (i) as the same stood at the relevant time should be read conjunctively. In this connection their Lordships observed that apparently contrary views expressed in the Division Bench decision of this Court in (2) 70 CWN 615 were obiter. In the instant Rule it is not at all necessary for us to enter into these questions because the said Schedule to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act has been amended. In this connection their Lordships observed that apparently contrary views expressed in the Division Bench decision of this Court in (2) 70 CWN 615 were obiter. In the instant Rule it is not at all necessary for us to enter into these questions because the said Schedule to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act has been amended. The scope of Section 22 and the effect of Section 5 of the West Bengal Act XXXV of 1969 amending the entry XII in the Second Schedule, City Civil Courts Act, 1953 and the Schedule under Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, were neither mooted in the said case before B.C. Mitra and S.C. Ghosh, JJ. nor the said points were decided by the learned Judges. 13. We also find no substance in the contention of Mr. Ray, learned Advocate for the petitioner that the trial Court in considering the pecuniary jurisdiction should have adverted to the fact that the plaintiff has claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 100/- per diem since July 1971 for a period prior to the institution of the suit. The learned Judge in his judgment has not dealt with this aspect of the matter and it is not clear whether such a point was at all urged before the Court below. Secondly, Order 20, Rule 12(b) empowers a Court either to pass a decree for rent or mesne profits which have accrued on the property during the period prior to the institution of the suit or to direct an enquiry as to such rent or mesne profits. In the instant suit, the plaintiff in effect has prayed for such an enquiry into its claim for mesne profits and has, accordingly, tentatively valued the same at Rs. 500/- and has paid court-fees thereon. We are unable to say that the same was not permissible in law. Thirdly, in this case the suit for relief for ejectment has been valued at Rs. 28,200/- in terms of Section 7 (XIII) (d) of the Court-Fees Act. Further even if the claim for mesne profits is valued at the rate of Rs. 100/- per diem, still the value of the two reliefs taken together would be less than Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, the value of the suit is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court as raised by the West Bengal Act 35 of 1969. Further even if the claim for mesne profits is valued at the rate of Rs. 100/- per diem, still the value of the two reliefs taken together would be less than Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, the value of the suit is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court as raised by the West Bengal Act 35 of 1969. 14. For all these reasons, we hold that there is no substance in this Rule. We, accordingly, discharge this Rule. There will be no order as to costs. Let the order be communicated to the Court below at an early date. Bhattacharyya J. : I agree.