JUDGMENT : Soumen Sen, J. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Chapter 13A of the Rules on the Original Side of this Court for summary eviction of the defendant from premises no.18 Hemanta Basu Sarani previously known as 1, 2 & 3 Old Court House Street, Calcutta 700069. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the property in question. The plaintiff sued the defendant seeking recovery of possession of a 6000 sq. ft. space in the ground floor of the premises No.18, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 069 for recovery of arrear rent of Rs.39,20,000/- (rupees thirty nine lacs twenty thousand only) and for mesne profits. The plaintiff claims that the last rent paid by the defendant was Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) per month and on that basis it is contended by the plaintiff that the tenancy of the defendant is governed by the provisions of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and not by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. On such assumption the plaintiff has served a notice dated 17th May 2012 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy of the defendant on expiry of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice was received by the defendant on 18th May, 2012 and with effect from 3rd June, 2012 the tenancy of the defendant stood determined. According to the plaintiff the defendant has no defence to its claim for eviction and accordingly this application has been filed for summary disposal of the suit on the basis of affidavit evidence. Mr. Jishnu Saha, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits the plaintiff derives its title to the premises on the basis of the Great Eastern Hotel (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1980 as amended by the Amending Act of 2005 and the notification issued by the State Government on 5th October, 2005. Section 3(1) of the Act of 1980 provides for the vesting of the undertaking of the company (The Great Eastern Hotel Limited) in the State Government. Section 3(1) of the Act of 1980 provides for the vesting of the undertaking of the company (The Great Eastern Hotel Limited) in the State Government. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 provided that upon vesting of undertaking of the company (including both movable and immovables) the State Government may for efficient management and administration thereof provide by notification for the transfer of the undertaking of the company (save the lands and buildings forming part thereof) in the Great Eastern Hotel Authority. Sub-section 3 of Section 3 however allowed the Hotel authority to use the lands and buildings by the Hotel authority. Section 3(3) of the Amending Act of 2005 added a proviso to Section 3(2) of the Principal Act providing that the State Government may be notification provide for the vesting and all matters connected therewith or incidental thereto of the new undertaking to a new company whereupon the Hotel authority shall cease to have the use of the new undertaking or such portion thereof that is transferred through such notification. The effect of such amendment is to remove the restriction imposed by Section 3(2) of the Act of 1980 on the State Government to transfer the lands and building forming a part of the undertaking of the company to the Hotel Authority, and further to remove the embargo of only ‘use’ of such land and building by the Hotel authority. Accordingly, by the notification dated 5th October, 2005 the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 3(2) of the Great Eastern Hotel (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1980, as amended, provided for the vesting of the lands and buildings of the erstwhile Great Eastern Hotel and the vesting of the fixed and select current assets of the Great Eastern Hotel authority in the plaintiff. The Learned Senior Counsel submits that it is now settled law that the rent includes the total consideration paid by the party for occupation of a particular premises. In the circumstances, maintenance charges paid for occupation of a premises must necessarily form a component of rate. In this regard the plaintiff placed reliance on the following decisions: i) (1990) 2 SCC 651 (Puspa Sen Gupta Vs. Susma Ghose); ii) (2002)5 SCC 51 (Abdul Kader Vs. G.D.Govindaraj (Dead) By Lrs.); iii) AIR 1957 SC 309 (Karnani Properties Ltd. Vs. Miss Augustine & Ors.); iv) AIR 2000 Delhi 69 (Sewa International Fashions Vs. In this regard the plaintiff placed reliance on the following decisions: i) (1990) 2 SCC 651 (Puspa Sen Gupta Vs. Susma Ghose); ii) (2002)5 SCC 51 (Abdul Kader Vs. G.D.Govindaraj (Dead) By Lrs.); iii) AIR 1957 SC 309 (Karnani Properties Ltd. Vs. Miss Augustine & Ors.); iv) AIR 2000 Delhi 69 (Sewa International Fashions Vs. Smt. Suman Kathpalia & Ors.); v) AIR 1976 Allahabad 362 (P.L.Kureel Talib Mankab, Vidhan Parishad Vs. Beni Prasad & Anr.); vi) 2008 (1) CLJ 559 (Cal) (Suparna Ghosh Vs. Dr.Santanu Majumder) It is submitted that although the defendant attempted to bifurcate the rent paid by it in two parts, i.e., rent of Rs.1,600/- (Rupees One Thousand Six Hundred Only) and maintenance charges of Rs.38,400/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Only), the plaintiff clearly did not accept such bifurcation and insisted rent to be Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand Only) per month and accordingly appropriated the entire sum paid by the defendant towards rent. The Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the letter dated 12th February, 2003 written by the Great Eastern Hotel authority to the defendant, the letter dated 27th March, 2003 written by the defendant to the Great Eastern Hotel authorities, the letter dated 5th April, 2003 written by the Eastern Hotel to the defendant and the letter dated 22nd October, 2003 written by the Great Eastern Hotel to the defendant, the receipts issued by the Great Eastern Hotel authority, the letter dated 11th February, 2004 written by the Great Eastern Hotel authority to the defendant and submitted that it is significant that separate receipts have never been issued to the defendant separately acknowledging the payment of maintenance charges of Rs.38,400/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Only). The attention of this court was drawn to an order dated 1st April, 2004 passed by this Hon’ble Court in a writ petition filed by the defendant whereby on a challenge by the defendant to a further enhancement of the rent of the suit premises of Rs.1,86,000/- (Rupees One Lac Eighty Six Thousand Only) per month, this Hon’ble Court directed the defendant to go on paying Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) towards monthly rent. It is argued that this order was never challenged by the defendant by filing an appeal. It is argued that this order was never challenged by the defendant by filing an appeal. Although an application for recalling of the order date 1st April, 2004 appears to have been filed, a copy of the said recalling application however, has not been disclosed by the defendant. However, from an order dated 22nd June, 2004 passed in such recalling application it is, however, clear that the order dated 1st April, 2004 was not recalled. The defendant has filed an affidavit in opposition. In the said affidavit the defendant has essentially taken the following grounds to resist the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not the owner of the premises No.18, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 069 and is consequently not the defendant’s landlord. Therefore, it cannot maintain the instant suit seeking the defendant’s eviction or seeking to realize either arrear rent or mesne profits. Although a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) was being paid by the defendant every month for its occupation of the suit premises, only a sum of Rs.1,600/- (Rupees One Thousand Six Hundred Only) out of the same was being paid towards rent and the balance sum of Rs.38,400/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Only) was being paid towards maintenance charges. As such, the defendant’s tenancy is governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and its tenancy could not have been terminated simply by service of a notice under Section 106 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The suit has been wrongly valued on the basis of rent @ Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) per month and on the basis of mesne profit as claimed by the plaintiff. As such, this Hon’ble Court does not have the jurisdiction to receive and try the suit. On the face of the challenge being thrown by the defendant that the plaintiff is not a landlord of the defendant, it is important at this stage to consider the rival submissions with regard to their respective claim. The respondent on the other hand contended that the defendant had been a tenant of the suit premises under the Government of West Bengal. The defendant was granted tenancy for a shop-room situated within the Great Eastern Hotel on the North Eastern side facing the main road being Old Court House Street (now Hemanta Basu Sarani), Kolkata on the ground floor. The defendant was granted tenancy for a shop-room situated within the Great Eastern Hotel on the North Eastern side facing the main road being Old Court House Street (now Hemanta Basu Sarani), Kolkata on the ground floor. The tenancy granted in favour of the defendant is more than 100 years old. Since 1951 the monthly rent was being paid by the defendant to the Government of West Bengal. Since the inception of the tenancy the defendant has been paying rent month by month. Since 1975 the monthly rent payable by the defendant was Rs.1600/- per month and the said rent of Rs.1600/- per month had been received by a company named Great Eastern Hotel Ltd. for more than 25 years and receipts thereof were issued by the said Great Eastern Hotel Ltd. By a Notification issued by Great Eastern Hotel (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1980, the Great Eastern Hotel Authority was constituted and thereafter, rent was accepted and rent receipt was issued by the said authority. The Great Eastern Hotel Authority issued monthly rent receipts for the sum of Rs.1600/- per month till March, 2003. On 27th March, 2003 at the request of the defendant, it was agreed between the defendant and the Great Eastern Hotel Authority that a sum of Rs.38,400/- per month would be paid by the defendant on account of maintenance charges apart from rent of Rs.1600/- per month. Between April, 2003 and October, 2003 the defendant continued to pay rent at Rs.1600/-per month and maintenance charges @ Rs.38,400/- per month in respect of the tenanted premises and rent receipts were issued therefor by the Hotel authority. By a letter dated 22nd October, 2003, the Great Eastern Hotel Authority informed the defendant that rent of the premises had been fixed at Rs.1,86,000/- per month. It is argued that there is a serious dispute whether the plaintiff is the lessor or not, as would be apparent from the following:- By a Notification dated 30th September, 2005, it was contemplated that all assets and properties of Apollo Zipper Company Pvt. Ltd. stood transferred to the State Government. The Notification of 5th October, 2005, however, records that the Fixed Assets of Great Eastern Hotel authority stood transferred to Apollo Zipper Company Pvt. Ltd. which by virtue of the notification dated 30th September, 2005 has already become a State Government Company. The Notification of 5th October, 2005, however, records that the Fixed Assets of Great Eastern Hotel authority stood transferred to Apollo Zipper Company Pvt. Ltd. which by virtue of the notification dated 30th September, 2005 has already become a State Government Company. In the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the plaintiff, there is a reference to an agreement between Bharat Hotel, Governor of West Bengal and Apollo Zipper Company Pvt. Ltd. After the notification of 5th October, 2005, there were correspondence exchanged between C.K. Jain & Co. being the Advocates for the defendant and Khaitan & Co. being the Advocates for the plaintiff, who is representing both Bharat Hotel and Apollo Zipper Company Pvt. Ltd. The respondent in this regard has relied upon the following correspondence exchanged between the parties:- (a) The Hotel Authority by a letter dated 24th October, 2006, stated that Great Eastern Hotel has vested in Apollo Zipper Company Pvt. Ltd. (b) Khaitan & Co. by a letter dated 28th April, 2006 addressed to the defendant stating, inter alia, that Bharat Hotel Ltd. has become the absolute and exclusive owner of Great Eastern Hotel Authority. (c) By a letter dated 13th June, 2006 issued by C.K. Jain & Co. Advocates for the defendant addressed to Khaitan & Co., Advocates for the plaintiff, request was made for a letter of attornment of the tenancy. (d) The Advocates for the defendant, C.K. Jain & Co. requested by a letter dated 27th June, 2006 Khaitan & Co., Advocates for the plaintiff to reveal the identity of the rightful/true owner of Great Eastern Hotel. (e) A similar letter dated 5th July, 2006 was written by C.K. Jain & Co. to Khaitan & Co., wherein it was reiterated that the defendant was anxious to make payment of the rent to the rightful landlord in respect of the area occupied by the defendant. (f) On 11th July, 2006, a letter was written by C.K. Jain & Co. to both Bharat Hotel Ltd. and Apollo Zipper Company Pvt. Ltd. acknowledging that Bharat Hotel Ltd. has become the exclusive and absolute owner of the said property as conveyed by the letter of Khaitan & Co. dated 28th April, 2006 and requesting whether rent would be accepted by them. to both Bharat Hotel Ltd. and Apollo Zipper Company Pvt. Ltd. acknowledging that Bharat Hotel Ltd. has become the exclusive and absolute owner of the said property as conveyed by the letter of Khaitan & Co. dated 28th April, 2006 and requesting whether rent would be accepted by them. In view of the fact that the petitioner refused to accept rent from the Defendant, the Defendant was compelled to file an application being G.A. No.206 of 2007 in the pending writ petition being W.P. No.569 of2004 for allowing Defendant to pay the outstanding rent being Rs.1600/-per month on account of rent and Rs.38,400/- on account of maintenance charges aggregating to Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner and Bharat Hotel Ltd. The said application is still pending. In March, 2007, C.S. No.53 of 2007 was filed by Apollo Zipper Company Pvt. Ltd. and Bharat Hotel Ltd. being the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 against the defendant, W. Newman & Co. in this Hon’ble Court. At paragraph 17 of the plaint, it has been alleged that “the plaintiffs are the lawful owner”. At paragraph 10(c) of the said plaint, it has been alleged that the plaintiffs are admittedly the landlord/owners. In paragraph 11 of the plaint, it has also been stated that the plaintiffs have sought leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to institute the suit, which has been granted. However, the instant suit being C.S. No.201 of 2012 has been filed on 6th June, 2012 only by Apollo Zipper Company Pvt. Ltd. On 17th May, 2012, a notice was purportedly issued under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act by the plaintiff through its Advocate-on-record upon the defendant determining its tenancy in respect of the tenanted premises and calling upon it to quit, vacate and deliver up peaceful and vacant possession of the tenanted premises upon expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter. On 8th August, 2012, a suit being T.S. No.1183 of 2012 was filed by the defendant before the Learned City Civil Court at Calcutta before filing of the instant Chapter XIIIA application against Apollo Zipper Company Pvt. Ltd. and Bharat Hotels Ltd. and Great Eastern Hotel Authority and the State of West Bengal, inter-alia, seeking a declaration that the Defendant is a monthly tenant of the tenanted premises at a monthly rent of Rs.1600/- per month and the notice to quit dated May 17, 2012 is void. The said suit is pending final disposal. The defendant has never paid rent to the plaintiff. The last rent paid by the Defendant to Great Eastern Hotel Authority was for month of October, 2003. Chapter XIIIA contemplates only an eviction suit against a lessee. It is the case of the plaintiffs in C.S. No.53 of 2007 para 10(a) that “tenancy of the defendant got terminated by operation of law after the enactment of Great Eastern Hotels (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1980 and thereafter, the defendant has been in wrongful and illegal occupation of the suit premises, which has now been purchased by the plaintiff.” Therefore, tenancy, according to the plaintiff was terminated in 1980. In such circumstances, there could not have been any lease or transfer in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, Chapter XIIIA is not maintainable. Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, the learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Tilak Bose, Senior Advocate and Raj Ratan Sen, Advocate argued that determination of rent is always a question of fact and a matter of agreement between the parties. It is submitted that in this proceeding the Court cannot fix the contractual rent of the parties. Interim order of court in writ jurisdiction (pending matter) cannot be considered to be rent. The Court does not have jurisdiction to fix the rent or to set up a contract or vary the terms of a contract. Determination of what constitutes maintenance charges has to be decided in trial and an opportunity should be given to the defendant to adduce oral and documentary evidence to substantiate such facts. In any event, it is not within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court to determine what is fair rent or rent under the provisions of The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Section 17(1) vests jurisdiction on the Controller to fix fair rent. In any event, it is not within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court to determine what is fair rent or rent under the provisions of The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Section 17(1) vests jurisdiction on the Controller to fix fair rent. Section 43(1) of The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act states that appeal lies from final order of Controller to the Tribunal. Section 44 of The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act states that no Civil Court can entertain any suit or proceeding insofar as it relates to fixation of fair rent. It is emphatically argued that Newman has never tendered a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month as rent. A sum of Rs. 1600/- per month had been tendered to Apollo Zipper, but the same was refused. By tendering of Rs. 1600/- to Apollo Zipper, Newman never accepted Apollo Zipper as its landlord. In any event since no rent of Rs.1600/- per month was accepted there cannot be any estoppel against the Newman for accepting Apollo Zipper as its landlord. In the event it is contended that by tendering the sum of Rs.1600 per month as rent Newman accepted Apollo Zipper as its landlord, then Apollo Zipper would also be estopped from contending that rent is any amount other than Rs. 1600/- per month. The filing of the writ petition by Newman challenging the letter dated 22nd October, 2003 of Great Eastern Hotel Authority whereby rent had been claimed at Rs. 1,86,000/- per month or the passing of the order dated 1st April, 2004 does not act as estoppel against Newman. The subject matter of writ petition is challenging a decision of Great Eastern Hotel Authority. The Order dated 1st April, 2004 is an interim order and no interim order even can determine contractual right of parties regarding payment of rent or any other right. The Court cannot create a contract between the parties. The Interim order dated 1st April, 2004 has never been acted upon and after the interim order, no rent of Rs.40,000/- has ever been tendered; The only rent tendered after passing of the interim order dated 1st April, 2004 was at the rate of Rs.1600/- which was refused; The defendant has not paid any rent at rate of Rs. 40,000/- per month after filing of the writ petition. 40,000/- per month after filing of the writ petition. The filing of the interim application in the writ petition for deposit of amount should not act as an estoppel against Newman. Firstly, the prayer in the interim application is for deposit of rent at the rate of Rs. 1600/- and balance on account of maintenance charges. Secondly, mere filing of an application to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 1600/- per month and maintenance charges at the rate of Rs. 38,400/- per month before the Writ Court does not in any usurp the jurisdiction of the Controller under Section 17(1) of The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. It is submitted that the Interlocutory Court is coram non-judice and any declaration of rent by the learned Interlocutory Judge would be contrary to the statute and would be without jurisdiction. i) Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi reported at 2012 (4) SCC 307 paras 22,23 ii) Official Trustee Vs. Sachindra Nath Chatterjee & Anr. reported at AIR 1969 SC 823 Para, 18 The learned Senior Counsel has argued that the defendant has never accepted the plaintiff as landlord. In the Civil Suit filed before the City Civil Court, Newman has accepted State of West Bengal as the landlord; The amendment to Great Eastern Hotel (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1980 dated 25th August, 2005 is of no significance. By introduction to the proviso to Section 3(2) and Section 4 of the amending Act, the State Government can vest “new undertaking to a new company”. New undertaking includes land and building of Great Eastern Hotel Limited held by State Government immediately before new notification date; Under Apollo Zipper (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)Act, 1996, the company Apollo Zipper Pvt. Ltd. stands vested in the State Government, Section 3 of Apollo Zipper Act, 1996 reads as follows:- “Section3- transfer to and vesting in, State Government of the undertakings of the company-On the appointed day, the undertakings of the company, and the right, title, and interest of the company in relation to its undertakings, shall by virtue of this Act, stand transferred to, and vest in, the State Government.” The Apollo Zipper Amending Act dated 30th September, 2005 only reiterates this position and states in Section (ii) that all employees of Apollo Zipper Pvt. Ltd. shall become employees of the State Government. In repelling the contention that by virtue of the notification dated 5th October, 2005, the land and building which always stood vested with State of West Bengal has again been vested in the State of West Bengal through Apollo Zipper India Ltd. It is submitted that such argument would lead to absurdity. No property of State Government can again vest by reason of a notification to itself. The only possible construction which can be given is that all assets and properties which were owned by Great Eastern Hotel Authority have stood transferred to Apollo Zipper (and this does not include land and building which always remained with State Government); The present plaint and Ch. XIIIA application have been affirmed not by any employee of the State Government and it is an admitted position by virtue of the several notifications that Apollo Zipper India Limited has stood vested in the State Government and all employees of Apollo Zipper are employees of the State Government. The respondent has placed reliance on the letter dated 28th April, 2006 and it is argued that in the said letter the Solicitor of Bharat Hotels Limited and Apollo Zipper has mentioned an agreement between State of West Bengal, Apollo Zipper has mentioned an agreement between State of West Bengal, Apollo Zipper and Bharat Hotels Limited whereby ownership has been acquired by of Bharat Hotels Limited. This document is an internal document of the State Government and deliberately such document is not being disclosed since State is the owner of the property. It is submitted that in view of the dilapidated condition of the tenanted premises under the occupation of the defendant and in view of the various orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in the writ proceedings and in the suits between the parties, where numerous orders have been passed directing the plaintiff to repair the premises and in view of the fact that the premises in question, is still in a dilapidated condition, where no steps have been taken by the plaintiff to repair the premises, the defendant is entitled to suspension of rent and in this regard, reference is made to a case in P.K. Roy v. Bimala Mukherjee reported at 80 CWN 939. The other objection is that the suit filed by the plaintiff is undervalued and therefore this Hon’ble Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The other objection is that the suit filed by the plaintiff is undervalued and therefore this Hon’ble Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This Hon’ble Court has inherent lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The rent is 1600/- per month. A tenant even after termination of his contractual tenancy does not become an unauthorised occupant of the accommodation but remains a tenant. The possession does not become wrongful until and unless a decree for eviction is made. i) Shyam Charan Vs. Sheoji Bhai & Anr. reported at AIR 1977 SC 2270 at 2262 (para 8) ii) Firm Dewan Kirpa Ram Radha Kishan & Ors. Vs. Hari Kishan Dass reported at AIR 1977 Allahabad 22 (para 9) iii) Sankar Basu Vs. Sri Prabir Ghosh reported at 2000(2) Calcutta Law Times 43 (Para 12) iv) Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad & Ors. reported at 2007 (7) SCC 1077 (Para 21) For the purpose of valuation one year’s rent at Rs. 1600/- per month has to be considered which is a sum of Rs. 19,200/- only. Even if it is assumed that Rs.40,000/- is taken as rent, the 12 months amount would become Rs.4,80,000/- in view of Section 7(xiii)(d) of West Bengal Court Fees Act 1970. Therefore by claiming mesne profits the plaintiff cannot inflate its jurisdiction. The plaint was affirmed on 6th June, 2012 and the notice to quit is dated 17th May, 2012. Even if mesne profits are taken into account the total amount would not exceed Rs.10 lakhs on the date of filing of the suit. Regarding claim on account of balance rent, it is argued that Apollo Zipper is not entitled to such balance rent. It is the State Government who is entitled to any balance rent. In support of his contention that the maintenance charges is not a component of rent, the defendant relied on a decision of this Hon’ble Court reported in Krishnan Nambisom Vs. K.S. Chatterjee reported at 1988 (1) CHN 143 . In reply Mr. Saha, the learned senior counsel submits that the said decision is clearly distinguishable as in the said case the landlord himself issued two separate receipts to the defendant, one for establishment charges and the other for rent. Having himself issued two separate receipts acknowledging separate payments of establishment charge and rent by the defendant, in the said case, the Court held that, the landlord could not contend otherwise. Having himself issued two separate receipts acknowledging separate payments of establishment charge and rent by the defendant, in the said case, the Court held that, the landlord could not contend otherwise. In the instant case not only did the plaintiff not issue any separate receipt acknowledging the receipt of any maintenance charges, it repeatedly asserted that the amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) paid by the defendant was on account of rent and accordingly appropriated such amount towards rent. It is argued that even while attempting to split up the rent and maintenance charge, the defendant has not come forward to say as to on account of what maintenance such charge was agreed to be paid by it or as to what maintenance it expected against payment of such charge. The defendant has attempted a simpliciter bifurcation of the total amount paid by it into a paltry sum on account of rent for 6000 sq. ft. space in the heart of the commercial business district of Kolkata and a large sum on account of maintenance charges without any basis or justification therefor. Over the years the defendant has not come forward to seek any abatement or deduction of the so-called maintenance charges on the allegation that the plaintiff has failed to duly maintain the premises. This despite the fact that it has so alleged in the plaint filed by it in the Title Suit No.1183 of 2012 in the Learned City Civil Court at Calcutta. In the circumstances, and in view of the settled law on the subject, it is submitted that it is not open to the defendant to contend that the matter of what constituted rent of the suit premises requires adjudication in a trial or that merely on the basis of its unilateral assertion a sum of Rs.38,400/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Only) can be treated differently and segregated from rent paid in respect of the suit premises. The decisions cited by the defendant on the jurisdiction of Courts to fix rents are neither material nor relevant. The decisions cited by the defendant on the jurisdiction of Courts to fix rents are neither material nor relevant. Although the cases have been cited by the defendant to contend that a suit cannot be valued on the basis of a claim for mesne profits, the said cases are neither relevant nor material for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court to receive, try and adjudicate the instant suit as the suit, even on the basis of the claim for eviction and the claim on account of appear rents is clearly valued in excess of Rs.10 lac. While for the purpose of valuation of the suit the rent has been calculated at Rs.40,000/- per month, even without taking the same into consideration, the value of the suit exceeds Rs.10 lac only on the basis of the plaintiff’s claim on account of arrear rent of Rs.39,20,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Twenty Thousand Only). In view of the fact that the suit valuation even on the basis of only the plaintiff’s claim for arrear rents, exceeds Rs.10 lac, the decisions cited by the defendant on the question of whether the mesne profits can be taken into account for valuing suit are also not relevant and are not accordingly dealt with individually. On 7th September, 1975 the State of West Bengal enacted the Great Eastern Hotel (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1975 in order to provide for the taking over of the management of the Undertaking of the Great Eastern Hotel Limited for a limited period in the public interest and in order to secure the proper management of the said Hotel. On 7th September, 1975 the State of West Bengal enacted the Great Eastern Hotel (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1975 in order to provide for the taking over of the management of the Undertaking of the Great Eastern Hotel Limited for a limited period in the public interest and in order to secure the proper management of the said Hotel. The said Act defines “undertaking” in Section 2(d) of the said Act, which reads:- “2(d) “Undertaking of the company” means the properties of the company, both movable and immovable, cash, balances, reserve funds and other assets of the company including lands, buildings, machineries, plants furniture, equipments, stores and any other property which may be in the ownership, possession, custody or control of the company immediately before the commencement of this Act.” Section 5 of the said Act provides that all properties which remain under the management of the State Government under this Act shall be used for the purposes for which they were being used immediately before the appointed day and upon the expiry of the period of 5 years the management of such properties shall revert to the company. Subsequently, on 17th July, 1980 the Great Eastern Hotel [Acquisition of Undertaking] Act, 1980 came into force. The said Act was enacted to provide for the acquisition of the Undertaking of Great Eastern Hotel Ltd. The undertaking of the company is defined in Section 2(f), which reads: “2(f). “Undertaking of the company” means the properties, both movable and immovable, cash balances, reserve Funds and other assets of the company including lands, buildings, machineries, plants, furniture, equipments, stores and any other property which may be in the ownership, possession, custody or control of the company in relation to its undertaking immediately before the appointed day and all books of accounts, registers and other documents of whatever nature relating thereto.” On and from the appointed day, that is to say, 17th July, 1980, the Undertaking of the company by virtue of the Act would stand transferred to and vest absolutely in the State Government. Upon the vesting of the Undertaking of the company in the State Government, the State Government may for efficient management and administration of the said Hotel provide by notification for the transfer of the Undertaking of the company [save lands and buildings forming part thereof to and vesting thereof in the Hotel authority with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification]. The State Government, however, would allow the lands and buildings mentioned in Sub-section (2) to be used by the Hotel authority for the purpose of giving effect to the said Act. Section 3 deals with the acquisition of the Undertaking of the company which reads:- “S.3. (1) On and from the appointed day, the undertaking of the company shall, by virtue of this Act, stand transferred to, and vest absolutely in the State Government. (2) Upon the vesting of the undertaking of the company in the State Government under sub-section (1), the State Government may, for efficient management and administration thereof, provide by notification for the transfer of the undertaking of the company (save the lands and buildings forming part thereof) to, and vesting thereof in the Hotel Authority with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification. (3) The State Government may allow the lands and buildings mentioned in sub-section(2) to be used by the Hotel Authority for the purpose of giving effect to this Act on such terms and conditions as may be provided by notification under sub-section (2).” On 25th August, 2015 by the West Bengal Act XVI, 2015, the Great Eastern Hotel [Acquisition of Undertaking] Act, 1980 was amended by the Great Eastern Hotel [Acquisition of Undertaking (Amendment)] Act, 2005. The said Act in Section 3(c)(d) defines New Undertaking. Under the said definition “New Undertaking” would mean the properties, both moveable and immovable and other assets of or in the ownership or control of the Hotel authority and the land and the land and buildings of the erstwhile Great Eastern Hotel Ltd. held by the State Government immediately before the new notification date. Under the said definition “New Undertaking” would mean the properties, both moveable and immovable and other assets of or in the ownership or control of the Hotel authority and the land and the land and buildings of the erstwhile Great Eastern Hotel Ltd. held by the State Government immediately before the new notification date. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the principal Act was amended which permits the State Government by notification to vest the lands and buildings and all matters connected therewith or incidental thereto of the New Undertaking or any part thereof to a new company and the Hotel authority shall from the dates specified in such notification cease to have the use of the New Undertaking. By the said amending Act, Sections 2 and 3 of the principal Act were amended. In section 2 of the principal Act, after Clause (c) various clauses were inserted which, inter alia, include Clause 3(c)(d). Similarly, the clause amending Section 3(2) of the principal Act by which the following proviso was added, reads:- “To sub-section (2) of section 3 of the principal act, the following proviso shall be added: “Provided that the State Government may, by notification, provide for the vesting and all matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, of the New Undertaking, or any part thereof, to a New Company and the Hotel Authority shall, from the date specified in such notification, cease to have the use of the New Undertaking, or such portion thereof, that have been transferred through such notification.” The plaintiff was constituted pursuant to the provisions of Apollo Zipper Company Pvt. Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1986. By a notification dated 25.8.05 the Great Eastern Hotel (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1980 was modified, which empowered the State Government to transfer and vest the Undertaking of Great Eastern Hotel unto a new company. On 25th September, 2005 Apollo Zipper Company Pvt. Ltd. [Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) (Amendment)]] Act, 2005 was brought into force for reconstruction and rehabilitation of the Undertaking of Apollo Zipper Company Pvt. Ltd. Notification under Section 7A of the Apollo Zipper Company Pvt. Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1986 was issued on 30.9.05, whereby and whereunder the control, management and business of the plaintiff including all its assets, rights and liabilities were vested in the State Government. Thereafter, by a notification under Section 3(2) of the Great Eastern Hotel (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1980, the fixed assets and select current assets, land and building of Great Eastern Hotel were vested in the plaintiff. Relevant portions of the said notification dated 5th October, 2005 and Schedule 1 are reproduced below:- “NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Great Eastern Hotel (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1980, as amended the Governor is pleased hereby to direct that: i) The land and building of the erstwhile Great Eastern Hotel, more particularly described in Schedule I and ii) The fixed assets and select current assets of the Great Eastern Hotel Authority, including but not limited to the assets described in Schedule II, be vested in the Apollo Zipper India Limited. The above vesting will take effect on the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette. The Governor is further pleased to direct that for the purpose of this notification the fixed assets (including land and building) shall be valued at the net book value of fixed assets as per the audited accounts of the Great Eastern Hotel Authority as on March 31, 2004 and inventories shall be valued as certified by the management of the Great Eastern Hotel Authority.” SCHEDULE I Land and Building of Great Eastern Hotel to be vested in Appollo Zipper India Limited Land & Building Sl. No. Particulars Make Remarks 1. Land on which hotel property is located Not Applicable Plot area of about 9241.60 sq. mtrs. located at 18 Hemanta Basu Sarani, which is bounded by Homanta Basu Sarani on the western side, Waterloo Street on the southern side and British India Street on the northern side. 2. Hotel Building :Front Block Not Applicable A 4(four) storied building having total built up area of 16550 sq. mtrs. situated at the front facing Hemanta Basu Sarani having a frontage of width 19.8 mtrs. abutting Hemanta Basu Sarani with an arcade over the footpath. 3. Hotel Building : Rear Block Not Applicable A 6(six) storied “L” shaped building having total built up area of 14000 sq. mtrs. situated at the rear of the plot. 4. Building :Abutting Waterloo Street Not Applicable A 3(three) storied building having total built up area of 1800 sq. mtrs. abutting Hemanta Basu Sarani with an arcade over the footpath. 3. Hotel Building : Rear Block Not Applicable A 6(six) storied “L” shaped building having total built up area of 14000 sq. mtrs. situated at the rear of the plot. 4. Building :Abutting Waterloo Street Not Applicable A 3(three) storied building having total built up area of 1800 sq. mtrs. with the Bakery located on the ground floor and guest rooms/other facilities on upper floors. Since the defendant was sending the cheque towards rent and maintenance charges to the Great Eastern Hotel authority, the Principal Secretary of Great Eastern Hotel authority by a letter dated 24.2.06 informed the respondent that the land and building of the erstwhile Great Eastern Hotel had been vested in M/s. Apollo Zipper Company Pvt. Ltd. and as such the said Authority has nothing to do with the matter. The said letter reads thus:- “Ref: Per/006/023 Dated : 24.02.2006 M/s W. Newman & Co. Ltd. 3, Old Court House Street, KOLKATA-700 069 Dear Sirs, Reference your registered letter dt.21.02.2006 addressed to the Manager, Great Eastern Hotel, we are to inform you as follows : i) The land and buildings of the erstwhile Great Eastern Hotel have been vested in M/s Apollo Zipper India Ltd. having their place of business at 18, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 069 vide notification no. 1784 – T W dt.October 05, 2005 of Tourism Department, Govt. of West Bengal : ii) As such in this matter, this office has got nothing to do: iii) It is not at all a fact that any employee of this office i.e. Great Eastern Hotel Authority entered in your shop for taking photograph as alleged in your letter. Yours faithfully, (J. Bag), Member Secretary, Great Eastern Hotel Authority Copy to : The Managing Director, Apollo Zipper Inidia Ltd.” Mr. Pratap Kr. Chatterjee, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, submitted that in the cobweb of notifications it would be difficult for the plaintiff to establish its right as landlord vis-à-vis the defendant inasmuch as the plaintiff is not the sole owner of the property in question which would be evident from the first legal notice issued by Khaitan & Co. on 28th April, 2006, in which it was contended that there is a change of ownership of Great Eastern Hotel. on 28th April, 2006, in which it was contended that there is a change of ownership of Great Eastern Hotel. Bharat Hotel Limited and Apollo Zipper Company Pvt. Ltd. now became exclusive and absolute owner of Great Eastern Hotel. However, significantly the subsequent conduct of the defendant would show that the defendant for all intents and purposes considered and treated the plaintiff as the landlord and has tendered amounts towards rent and maintenance charges aggregating to Rs.40,000/-. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the defendant, in fact, has agreed to pay at the rate of Rs.1600 and the said offer was not to treat Rs.38,400/- as part of the rent. In reply to the letter dated 20th April, 2006 from Khaitan & Co., the solicitor of the defendants C.K.Jain & Co addressed a letter to Barat Hotel India Ltd. and Apollo Zipper India Ltd. making an enquiry as to whether the said two companies are entitled to realize rent in respect of the area under occupation of the defendant and if so to inform the defendant with effect from which date and in favour of which person payments of rent shall be made as the defendant is anxious to pay rent to the original owner of the Great Eastern Hotel. A further request was made to send a copy of the Gazette Notification dated 5th October, 2005 read with the notification dated 30th September, 2005 along with a copy of agreement. In terms of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 when right, title and interest in immovable property is transferred by operation of law, the spirit behind Section 109 would apply and successor-in-interest would be entitled to rights of the predecessor. There has been an attornment of tenancy in favour of the plaintiff. There is no need for a consensual attornment. The attornment is brought about by operation of law. Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act is based on the maxim, qui in jus dominiumve alterius succeed it jure ejus uti debet, meaning, rights and liabilities attached to the property (arising out of possession and control of the property) pass with the property. The tenancy between the Great Eastern Hotel and the defendant is admitted. Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act is based on the maxim, qui in jus dominiumve alterius succeed it jure ejus uti debet, meaning, rights and liabilities attached to the property (arising out of possession and control of the property) pass with the property. The tenancy between the Great Eastern Hotel and the defendant is admitted. The property subsequently by reason of the notifications of October 5, 2005 vested in the plaintiff and the Great Eastern Hotel, the erstwhile landlord had duly communicated this fact to the defendant by its letter dated February 24, 2006. Under such circumstances, the absence of any agreement between the defendant and the transfer of the landlord is of no consequence. The section does not insist that the transfer of the landlord of the landlord’s rights can take effect only if the tenant attorns. Attornment by the tenant is unnecessary to confer validity to the transfer of the landlord’s rights. A right to terminate the lease by a notice to quit is a right of the lessor. The transferee as provided in Section 109 gets “all the rights” of the lessor by virtue of the transfer “as to the property as part transferred”. This Section, thus, enables a transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (see Mohar singh vs Devi charan, AIR 1988 SC 1365 ) Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff as successor of Great Eastern Hotel for ejectment is competent. The dispute sought to be raised at this stage with regard to the entitlement of the plaintiff to claim rent as landlord on the basis of the notifications disclosed in this proceeding is unsustainable. The position as it stands today is the defendant is claiming the right as a tenant in respect of 6000 sq.ft. at a prime location in Calcutta without paying any occupation charges since 1st April, 2004 on one pretext or the other. It is in fact, located at the nerve centre of the city the area is considered for a commercial hub. Unless the valuation of the suit is demonstrably ridiculous or arbitrary or unreasonable, the Court would ordinarily rely on the valuation made by the plaintiff and entertain the suit if it is within its pecuniary limit on the basis of such valuation. The Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and determine the suit. Unless the valuation of the suit is demonstrably ridiculous or arbitrary or unreasonable, the Court would ordinarily rely on the valuation made by the plaintiff and entertain the suit if it is within its pecuniary limit on the basis of such valuation. The Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and determine the suit. The correspondence exchanged between the parties would show that the plaintiff all throughout asserted its right as the owner save and except in the letter dated 28th April, 2006 it was contended that Bharat Hotel Limited has become the exclusive and absolute owner of the Great Eastern Hotel. In fact, the said letter cannot create any ownership in favour of Bharat Hotel Limited in view of the notification dated October 5, 2005 and the subsequent letter of attornment dated February 24, 2006. The said letter of Khaitan & Co. has referred to the notifications, which clearly said that the land and building of Great Eastern Hotel vests in the plaintiff and no amount of assertion by any person or authority can divest the plaintiff of its right to ownership of the land and building except the State of West Bengal. By reason of the vesting provisions in the said notifications the defendant cannot deny the title of the plaintiff to the property. Section 116 of the Evidence Act forbids and disables a tenant from denying the title of its landlord. A title paramount would be of help to a defendant tenant only if such defendant tenant asserts its right on the basis of a development subsequent to the creation of the tenancy. No tenant of an immovable property by reason of Section 116 of the Evidence Act shall during the continuance of the tenancy be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had at the beginning of the tenancy a title to such immovable property. Moreover, all throughout the defendant recognizes the plaintiff as landlord and tendered rent until the suit is filed by the defendant in the City Civil Court in 2012. The defendant was trying to defer payment of the rent and maintenance charges on the plea that the defendant needs to ascertain from the notifications if the plaintiff became the landlord by operation of the statute. The defendant was trying to defer payment of the rent and maintenance charges on the plea that the defendant needs to ascertain from the notifications if the plaintiff became the landlord by operation of the statute. Under such circumstances, the claim of the defendant that the plaintiff is not the landlord of the defendant is clearly unsustainable and has no leg to stand. Mr. Pratap Kr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel, has questioned the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court to try and determine the suit. It is contended that the defendant all throughout paid rent and maintenance charges separately and by two separate cheques. It is submitted that if at the trial it is found that the rent is only Rs.1600/- then this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and determine the suit. The issue as to whether the maintenance charge would form part of the rent is in more res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court as well as of our Court. Although, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act has not defined rent but there is sufficient indication of what rent would constitute in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 5(7) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1957, makes it obligatory for a tenant to “pay the charges relating to the maintenance and amenities of the premises at the rate of 10 per cent of the fair rent or agreed rent, as the case may be.” The agreed rent may be inclusive of maintenance charge. In M/s. Cooke & Kelvey Properties Vs. United Bank of India reported at 2013 (1) CLT 617, it was held that in a given circumstances maintenance and service charges would include the rent agreed to be paid for occupation of the premises in question. In Radhe Charan Vs. Golok reported at ILR 30, Calcutta 834, where a certain sum described as collection charge which was payable in addition to rent was held as part of rent. There is nothing on record to show that the notice to quit was ever replied by the defendant. In absence of such reply it can be presumed that the defendant did not contemporaneously thought that the assertion of the right by the plaintiff was wrong or the basis is erroneous. There is nothing on record to show that the notice to quit was ever replied by the defendant. In absence of such reply it can be presumed that the defendant did not contemporaneously thought that the assertion of the right by the plaintiff was wrong or the basis is erroneous. In Usha Ranjan Bhattacharjee v. Mahalaksmi Thacker (1975) (1) Cal LJ 204), a learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court came to the same conclusion and held that ordinary grammatical meaning must be given to the word ‘rent’. Such meaning of ‘rent’ would mean the whole amount agreed to be paid by the tenant for the enjoyment of what has been let out to him irrespective of the fact whether the same amount has been described as rent or not. Subsequently a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Parul Banerjee v. Sri Anand Kumar Agarwalla ( 1979 (2) CLJ 297 ) relied on the ratio in Usha Ranjan and held that the term ‘rent’ is comprehensive enough to include all payments agreed to be paid by the tenant to the landlord for the use and occupation of not only the building and its appurtenances but also the furnishing, electric installations and other amenities agreed by the parties to be provided by the landlord. (page 299 of the report) In Smt. Anita Das Gupta v. A.C. Sett (88 C.W. No.242) (SC) another Division Bench considered the ratio rendered in all these judgments in Karnani Properties. Parul Banerjee and Usha Ranjan and came to the conclusion that the term ‘rent’ should be interpreted rather widely to include all that is payable as consideration for tenancy. In Anita Das Gupta, the landlord was realising two amounts separately under two separate receipts – one was rent and the other was service charges. Even then the Court held that the service charges are included within the wide connotation of rent as those charges were paid for services rendered and enjoyed in connection with fittings and fixtures which are all fixed in the tenanted premises. (see Mayank Poddar & Ors. Vs. Development Consultant Ltd. reported at AIR 2005 Calcutta 246) Since everything which is agreed to be payable for occupation of the tenanted premises comes under the concept of rent merely because the amount can be varied or the mode of payment is not monthly are not decisive factors at all. (see Mayank Poddar & Ors. Vs. Development Consultant Ltd. reported at AIR 2005 Calcutta 246) Since everything which is agreed to be payable for occupation of the tenanted premises comes under the concept of rent merely because the amount can be varied or the mode of payment is not monthly are not decisive factors at all. A mode of payment hardly relevant in deciding the character of the levy and that amount may vary as the quantum of rent may also vary. The Division Bench of this Court in Anita Das Gupta v. A.C. Sett (C.O.3512 of 1983) relied upon a Supreme Court judgment held that service charge payable by the tenant is part of the rent because the services rendered by the landlord and enjoyed by the tenant is not independent of the tenancy. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case took the following view:- “We have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward before us. In the case of Karnani Properties the Supreme Court pointed out that the term ‘rent’ had not been defined by the Act. It was further held that it should be interpreted rather widely to include all that is payable as consideration for the tenancy. In the present case no doubt the landlord realises two amounts separately and under two receipts. One amount is being realised as rent and there is no dispute that the same is rent. But the other amount is said to be the service charges. If such service charges are really independent of the tenancy independently provided and paid for then of course it may very well be said to be not a part of the rent even on its wider connotation as laid down by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in our opinion the true test for us is to find out whether the services which are charged for are the independent services rendered and enjoyed not as part of the tenancy. Applying this test to the facts of the present case, we cannot but accept the contention of Mr. Bagchi. Here, we find that service charges are payable for the fittings and fans which expressly include water taps, commodes, cisterns, water basin, sinks, electric fans etc. al fixed in the suit premises. It is obvious that these are really integrated part of the tenancy which cannot be separated therefrom. Bagchi. Here, we find that service charges are payable for the fittings and fans which expressly include water taps, commodes, cisterns, water basin, sinks, electric fans etc. al fixed in the suit premises. It is obvious that these are really integrated part of the tenancy which cannot be separated therefrom. It is true that the tenant/ defendant offered to forego such services, but that is of no consequence because they were not the subject matter of an independent settlement and it was never intended to be so. Such services being integral part of the tenancy, whatever is payable on that account would be rent notwithstanding the fact that it is separately paid for. Such separation is more notional than real. In the case of Karnani Properties, it is no doubt what was payable was amount inclusive of all charges, viz-rent electricity etc. which in our case the amounts have been separately specified. But that in our opinion makes no difference. So long the sum or sums payable for all that is payable for tenancy, the same shall be rent in the wider sense. What really constitutes the tenancy is a matter of agreement between the parties to be determined with reference to their mutual intention. All things which are intended to be enjoyed as part of the tenancy would be part and parcel of the tenancy and all sums payable on that accounts would be rent. (See Sidney Housing Co. Ltd. Vs. Fishbury Borough Council 1962(1) All E.R. 460, R.G. Ram Chandran V. Royal & Co. All India Rent Control Journal 736 and Khemchand Dyalji Vs. Muhammabhai Chandbhai AIR 1970 S.C. 102 )”. That the amount payable towards maintenance charges forms part of an agreement for the purpose of an enjoyment of the suit premises is not in dispute. The maintenance charge payable was not independent of tenancy but as an incidence of tenancy. The test is to find out whether the maintenance charges charged for are independent of the tenancy. The defendant does not show that the maintenance charge is unconnected with the tenancy. Under such circumstances, the argument that the maintenance charge does not form part of the tenancy cannot be accepted. As I have indicated above, there is sufficient indication in the Transfer of Property Act, as to what ‘rent’ would mean. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act defines ‘lease’. Under such circumstances, the argument that the maintenance charge does not form part of the tenancy cannot be accepted. As I have indicated above, there is sufficient indication in the Transfer of Property Act, as to what ‘rent’ would mean. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act defines ‘lease’. As to what constitutes rents could be found out from the provisions of Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act wherein although the word `rent’ has not been categorically mentioned but it is clearly discernable from the said decision what `rent’ would mean. The said section says that money, share, service or other thing to be so rendered is called the ‘rent’. Thus apart from the money which is paid as rent if any service is rendered and any payment is made in respect of the same irrespective of the fact whether a separate bill is raised for the same or not the same is to be treated and included within the definition of `rent’. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act reads:- “A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms”. The transferor is called the lessor, the transferee is called the lessee, the price is called the premium, and the money, share, service or other thing to be so rendered is called the rent. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Commr. of Income-tax v. Panbari Tea Co. reported at AIR 1965 SC 1871 Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act brings out the distinction between a price paid for a transfer of a right to enjoy the property and in a lump sum or in instalments is the consideration paid by the tenant for being let into possession. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act thus brings out a distinction between the price paid to enjoy the property and the periodic payment to the lessor. In short, it can be said that the rent is the consideration of price paid or promised for enjoyment of the property. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act thus brings out a distinction between the price paid to enjoy the property and the periodic payment to the lessor. In short, it can be said that the rent is the consideration of price paid or promised for enjoyment of the property. Thus, the charge of maintenance payable along with the rent being agreed upon by the parties would constitute rent. Moreover, in a writ petition filed by the defendant against fixation of the rent at Rs.1.86 Lacs, an order was passed on directing the petitioner to go on paying monthly rent at the rate of Rs.40,000/-. This order was passed on 1st April, 2004 before the notification dated 5th October, 2005. Admittedly, the said defendant did not pay any amount. Mr. Chatterjee argued that the writ court cannot assume jurisdiction in the matter inasmuch as the words “monthly rent” in the said order was loosely used as the defendant at no point of time paid Rs.6,000/- as monthly rent. In effect, the respondent questions the very jurisdiction of the writ court to pass any such order although curiously, the said order was passed only at the instance of the defendant and it appears that till date the said order is subsisting and not varied or modified. The argument that the writ court has no jurisdiction to usurp the jurisdiction of the rent controller and fix any monthly rent is self-defeating. The defendant has accepted the said order. It cannot be said that order passed in writ proceeding is a nullity and/or without jurisdiction. The Writ Court derives its power from the constitution. There is no embargo on the writ court to pass any order including fixation of rent. The Court under writ jurisdiction has, however, imposed some restrictions and may in appropriate cases decline to exercise jurisdiction on the ground of efficacious alternative remedy. Accordingly the contention that the writ court has no power to direct payment of monthly rent at the rate of Rs.40,000 as it is without jurisdiction cannot be accepted. The defendant appears to have accepted the said order although the defendant did not comply with the said order. Moreover, the defendant did not say in the affidavit that the said sum of Rs.38,400/- was independent of incidence of the defendant. The defendant appears to have accepted the said order although the defendant did not comply with the said order. Moreover, the defendant did not say in the affidavit that the said sum of Rs.38,400/- was independent of incidence of the defendant. Under such circumstances, the contention of the defendant that the maintenance charge would not form a component of the rent is devoid of any merit. With regard to the objection on the inflated claim and inclusion of mesne profits, it can be seen that as on 1st April, 2004 the authority is concerned assessed rent at the rate of Rs.1.86 lacs. If the said amount is taken into consideration then it can be said that the property is capable of fetching the aforesaid sum from a willing tenant. In a suit for eviction, the plaintiff is entitled to claim mesne profits and arrears of rent in respect of the property claimed. The arrears of rent calculated at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month could be far in excess of Rs.10 lakhs. Mr. Saha, the learned senior Counsel is correct in contending that while for the purpose of valuation of the suit, the rent has been calculated at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month, even without taking the same into consideration the value of the suit exceeded Rs.10 lakhs only on the basis of the plaintiff’s claim on account of arrear rent of Rs.39,20,000/-. The plaintiff has claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq.ft. per month for the tenanted premises aggregating to Rs.12 lakh per month which, according to the plaintiff, would be current market rate of rent of the tenanted premises. In J. Thomas & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Pawan Kumar Tebriwala reported at 1998 (II) CHN 503, the Hon’ble Division Bench considered the plea of fraudulent pecuniary valuation and stated that in order to succeed a plea based on fraudulent pecuniary valuation of the suit. It has to be demonstrated that the plaintiff’s case is very bad. If it is found that the valuation is on a higher side and might be excessive that itself would not make valuation a fraudulent one. The same view was expressed by the subsequent Bench decision in Punjab & Sind Bank Versus Technoshop Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2012 (3) CHN (Cal) 225 and Coal India Ltd. Versus Apeejay House Pvt. Ltd., reported at AIR 2013 Cal. The same view was expressed by the subsequent Bench decision in Punjab & Sind Bank Versus Technoshop Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2012 (3) CHN (Cal) 225 and Coal India Ltd. Versus Apeejay House Pvt. Ltd., reported at AIR 2013 Cal. 66 which reads:- “In Punjab & Sind Bank (supra) it was held that the defendant has failed to establish that the valuation put by the plaintiff is demonstrably arbitrary and unreasonable. The Hon’ble Division Bench has also taken the view that the continuation of the suit in this Court would not cause any inconvenience to the defendant since filing of the suit before the City Civil Court would not make any such difference as the appeal would be ultimately heard by the High Court. This view finds place in paragraph 17 which reads:- “17. If the suit is filed in High Court parties do not stand to lose a forum because from a decree passed by the City Civil Court also an appeal lies to a Division Bench of this Court. If a suit is overvalued High Court still has the jurisdiction to dismiss the same or pass a decree for less than rupees ten lacs but if on the contrary the plaint is directed to be presented before the City Civil Court that Court will lack jurisdiction to entertain the suit being valued more than rupees ten lacs. On that ground also the decree is liable to be upheld.” Even if the claim on account of mesne profit is ignored, then also the claim in the suit is more than Rs.10 lakhs on account of arrears of rent payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. Accordingly, I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Pratap Kumar Chatterjee, the learned Senior Counsel that the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and determine the suit. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to a final judgment for recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises occupied by the defendant at premises No.18, Hemanta Basu Sarani previously known as 1, 2 & 3 Old Court House Street, Calcutta 700069. G.A. No.2408 of 2012 stands disposed of. The department is directed to draw up the decree as expeditiously as possible. Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant prays for stay of operation of the judgment and decree. G.A. No.2408 of 2012 stands disposed of. The department is directed to draw up the decree as expeditiously as possible. Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant prays for stay of operation of the judgment and decree. The operation of judgment and decree shall remain stay till 07th December, 2015. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.