JUDGMENT :- Patherya J. This is an application filed under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules. The case of the petitioner is that the defendant was a monthly tenant and paid a sum of Rs.24,487.50 per month as rent. Pursuant to notice issued under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act C. S. No.496 of 1992 was filed. Such suit was with drawn with liberty to file a fresh suit and in 2008, pursuant to notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act C. S. No. 258 of 2008 has been filed. In the said suit the eviction of the defendant was sought by recovery of vacant possession besides mesne profits. In the affidavit filed by the defendant to the instant application except for mention of non-payment of cost which was a condition precedent for filing of the subsequent suit, no other defence has been taken. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a decree of vacant possession. Counsel for the defendant in opposing the said application submits that this Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit. A year’s rent aggregates to approximately Rs.2,93,850/-. The mesne profits sought is Rs.10,884/- per day which per month aggregates to Rs.3.26 lacs. The valuation has been inflated to bring the instant suit within the jurisdiction of this Court. Under the Court Fees Act 1970 valuation is governed by Section 7(xiii). As the same is in excess this Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction. The instant suit has been filed in December, 2008 while the earlier suit was filed in 1992. In the suit of 1992, Rs.3,000/- per diem was assessed as mesne profit. Therefore, till the date of filing of the suit (i.e.110 days) the amount which the petitioner would be entitled to claim on account of mesne profit would be Rs.3.30 lacs. Even if such sum is doubled the suit would not come within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. As a triable issue has been raised no decree be passed on this application. Reliance is placed on AIR 1988 SC 1150 and an unreported judgment in C. S. No.317 of 2003 (The Calcutta Gujarati Education Society & Anr. Vs. Budge Budge Co. Ltd.). Counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that in the initial affidavit filed no objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction was taken. Reliance is placed on AIR 1988 SC 1150 and an unreported judgment in C. S. No.317 of 2003 (The Calcutta Gujarati Education Society & Anr. Vs. Budge Budge Co. Ltd.). Counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that in the initial affidavit filed no objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction was taken. In the Supplementary Affidavit filed in December, 2010, the defence of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction has been taken and the same is an afterthought. In fact, nowhere has it been pleaded that the mesne profit sought is fanciful or fraudulent as held in 1998 (2) CHN 502 . Nowhere has it been pleaded that the calculation at Rs.100/- per diem is fanciful or fraudulent. As the defendant has not been able to demonstrate the same, mere allegation of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction without substantiation cannot be supported. Accordingly, orders be passed as sought. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the defendant has not taken the plea of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction in the affidavit filed to the application filed under Chapter XIIIA. The only plea taken is with regard to nonpayment of cost which was a condition precedent for filing the instant suit. The delay in payment of cost has been, subsequently, by orders, condoned and besides the aforesaid, no other defence has been taken. It is only in the Supplementary Affidavit filed in December, 2010 that the plea of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction has been taken but nowhere in such affidavit has it been stated that the over valuation is fanciful, fraudulent, ridiculous or whimsical nor has the appropriate value been stated in the affidavit filed. The plaintiff, on the other hand, has claimed mesne profit on per day basis. The said claim cannot be termed as ridiculous as the said premises is situate in a prime commercial area of Calcutta. 1998 (2) CHN 502 specifically states that the over valuation must be fraudulent and fanciful and such onus is of the defendant to discharge as held in 1999 (2) CLT 304 . In the instant case, except for the bald allegation of the suit being over valued, the defendant has not discharged the said onus by demonstration through materials on record. Therefore, the defence of the defendant is nothing but moonshine and accordingly, a decree is passed in terms of prayer (a) of the Master Summons. In the instant case, except for the bald allegation of the suit being over valued, the defendant has not discharged the said onus by demonstration through materials on record. Therefore, the defence of the defendant is nothing but moonshine and accordingly, a decree is passed in terms of prayer (a) of the Master Summons. No application has also been filed under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure since 2008. For ascertaining the mesne profits Mr. Sakya Sen, Advocate, 2nd Floor, Bar Library Club, is appointed as Commissioner at an initial remuneration of 1000 GMs. The Commissioner will file his report within six months from the date of the receipt of the said order. In view of the aforesaid this application is disposed of. Decree be drawn up expeditiously.