JUDGMENT 1. The Court: This is an application for dismissal of the suit and/or in the alternative, the plaint filed in the present suit be rejected and/or be taken off the file and/or the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate Court. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the suit is essentially for eviction of the monthly tenant who is admittedly governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. This kind of suit should be valued not on the basis of the market value of the suit property but be computed at amount equivalent to 12 months' rent. In this case the rate of rent is Rs. 31,842/- per month; the claim of arrears of rent as mentioned in the plaint is wholly incorrect as the defendant to the knowledge of the plaintiff has been depositing rent with the Rent Controller, since the plaintiff refused to accept the same. So the suit valuation on the basis of the alleged claim of arrears of rent cannot be entertained as factually being incorrect; as far as the mesne profit is concerned the same cannot be claimed and/or valued as the current rent is being deposited with the Rent Controller; there is no service of statutory notice under section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 3. In this kind of action it is settled law only the plaint has to be looked into. It appears from the plaint that the suit has been filed for eviction of the defendant being a monthly tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement, breach of condition of the tenancy, default in paying rent followed by notice to quit. In the plaint the valuation of the suit has been made in the manner as follows :- "For the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee the suit is valued at Rs. 30,35,283/- taking into account the rent for 12 months plus the' amount in default and for decree for mesne profit as claimed in paragraphs 11 and 14 hereof." 4. It appears that the valuation of the suit has been made on the basis of the aggregate value of the reliefs claimed in the plaint. There are more than one relief claimed in this suit and the reliefs claimed are as follows : (a) The recovery of arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. It appears that the valuation of the suit has been made on the basis of the aggregate value of the reliefs claimed in the plaint. There are more than one relief claimed in this suit and the reliefs claimed are as follows : (a) The recovery of arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 14,82,171/-. (b) A decree for mesne profits of Rs. 11,75,328/-. (c) Recovery of the possession of the suit property which has been valued an amount equivalent to 12 months' rent. 5. Mr. Roy, learned Senior Advocate submits that having regard to the contention made in this demurrer action the theory of nipping the suit in the bud cannot be made applicable in this case as going by the averment made in the plaint it cannot be said this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction. He argues the contention of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction is nothing short of defence which may be taken in the written statement. The court ultimately having considered the same mayor may not grant any relief, but on those grounds the plaint cannot be rejected. He submits that the Apex Court has not approved of dismissal of this kind of suit• at the threshold. In support of his contention he has drawn my attention and relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 1947 . 6. I have heard the argument of Mr. Roy but I did not hear the argument of the learned lawyer for defendant since none appeared. From plain reading of the averment made in the petition being the grounds of the Notice of Motion, it appears to me that correctness of the valuation of the suit is questioned not on the basis of averment of the plaint, but pleading some new facts and evidence, and this can be considered and/or examined later on, as some of the points of defence that there cannot be any question of arrear of rent, nor any default and further no question of mesne profit either, are essentially jurisdictional facts. It is settled law in this kind of action the court will not see anything but the plaint itself or any unimpeachable character of document having a statutory force and which may clinche the issue finally at threshold. In the affidavit-in-opposition the defendant's claim of valid deposit of rent is being denied and disputed. It is settled law in this kind of action the court will not see anything but the plaint itself or any unimpeachable character of document having a statutory force and which may clinche the issue finally at threshold. In the affidavit-in-opposition the defendant's claim of valid deposit of rent is being denied and disputed. So, I can safely ignore to consider the case of the defendant's on the demurrer action. Therefore, I am not adjudicating nor observing the defendant's possible defence on the jurisdictional fact. 7. As far as the valuation of the suit going by the averment of the plaint on account of recovery of rents and mesne profits are concerned, the same have been perfectly and lawfully computed for the purpose of maintaining the suit as regard payment of court fee and jurisdiction. 8. Next question remains as to whether the suit for recovery of the possession from a tenant and/or statutory tenant can be entertained by this Court inasmuch as jurisdictional valuation of this kind of suit is the same as the valuation for court fees. In this case no stretch of imagination the valuation for court fees will exceed Rs.10 lakhs. So, ordinarily this suit could not have been filed to get this relief simpliciter in this Court. Whether this relief can be combined with those reliefs which are otherwise at the beginning perfectly entertainable, or not. In my view, when the other reliefs claimed in a particular suit are entertainable on the basis of the averment made in the plaint under the law, the reliefs which would not be otherwise entertainable, if claimed alone, can also be included provided of course when subject in dispute is same between the same litigating parties. Order 2 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code permits a litigant to bring such a claim. Order 2 Rule 1 is quoted hereunder usefully. "Every suit shall as far as practicable be framed so as to afford ground for final decision upon the subjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation concerning them." 9. It is significant to mention that the words "subjects in dispute" are not synonymous with the words "cause of action" and it is apparent from the words "to prevent further litigation concerning them" employed in the said Rule 1. It is significant to mention that the words "subjects in dispute" are not synonymous with the words "cause of action" and it is apparent from the words "to prevent further litigation concerning them" employed in the said Rule 1. "Subjects in dispute" are nowhere defined in anywhere of the Code, but there is hardly any doubt that intention of the legislature is to avoid successive litigation between the same parties having the same jural relationship. While explaining the aforesaid words Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in case Shankarlal vs. Gangabaisen reported in AIR 1972 Bom. 326 while following a Madras High Court decision reported in 1903 ILR 26 observed that "the subject in dispute signifies the jural relationship between the parties to the suit for determination of which the suit is brought." 10. In this case the jural relationship between the two litigating parties is landlord and tenant. So it would be in consonance with the intention of the legislature, proper, that has exactly and rightly been done here, to claim all the reliefs in one suit rather than in two different suits, provided of course, pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction are invested with the Court. This composite action subject to Rule 6 of Order II of the Code of Civil Procedure is not only beneficial to the litigants, subserving justice too and thereby multifarious action can be avoided which may result in conflict of judicial decisions. The object of administration of justice is not to invite conflict of decisions but to harmonize the judicial pronouncement and that is possible in all certainty in one court only not by different court. When in this case some out of all the reliefs arising out of the subject in disputes are lawfully entertain able by this Court at the time of the institution and one of them is not, the plaintiff has sensibly brought this action combining all the reliefs. 11. So, I hold that at this stage in this case following the ratio decision by the Apex Court (Supra) as cited by Mr. Roy it would not be proper to nip this suit in the bud but court should wait for the trial of these issues which have been raised in this application, after the written statement is filed, as and by way of preliminary issue. Therefore, no order on this application. Roy it would not be proper to nip this suit in the bud but court should wait for the trial of these issues which have been raised in this application, after the written statement is filed, as and by way of preliminary issue. Therefore, no order on this application. The issues which have been raised here is permitted to be raised at the time of the trial of the suit provided of course written statement is filed and the suit is contested as a preliminary Issue. There will be no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.: No order on this application. Issues raised is permitted to be raised at the time of the trial of the suit provided w/s is filed and the suit is contested as a preliminary issue. No order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.