JUDGMENT Debangsu Basak, J. - Two sets of defendants have filed two applications seeking dismissal of the suit. Both the applications have been heard analogously as they are in the same suit. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the defendant No. 1 has submitted that, the alternative prayer made by the defendant No. 1 for return of the plaint should be considered, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He has submitted that, the plaintiff has sought eviction of monthly tenants governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. He has submitted that, the tenancies of the defendants cannot be considered to be commercial tenancies. The Act of 1997 has granted protection against eviction to the defendants. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the various paragraphs of the plaint. He has submitted that, the defendant No. 1 is the heir and legal representative of the deceased tenant. As the heir and legal representative of the deceased tenant, the defendant No. 1 has a statutory right to the tenancy. At least for a period of five years, the plaintiff cannot have the defendant No. 1 evicted. The suit has to be valued on the basis of the rent payable in respect of the tenancy and not on the basis of the claim for mense profits. Therefore, this Court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try, entertain and determine the present suit. The suit therefore has to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate forum. In support of such contention, learned advocate appearing for the defendant No. 1 has relied upon ( Ranjit Kumar Sengupta v. West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.,2017 SCCOnlineCal 20814 ). 3. Learned advocate appearing for the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have adopted the submissions advanced on behalf of the defendant No. 1. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that, the defendants are trespassers at the suit property and have been sued as such. The plaintiff has a legitimate claim for mense profits against the defendants. The plaintiff has claimed mense profits from the defendants and therefore valued the suit on the basis of the claim on account of mense profits. The suit has therefore been filed in the appropriate jurisdiction. The plaintiff has a legitimate claim for mense profits against the defendants. The plaintiff has claimed mense profits from the defendants and therefore valued the suit on the basis of the claim on account of mense profits. The suit has therefore been filed in the appropriate jurisdiction. In support of such contentions, he has relied upon ( Smt. Nandita Bose v. Ratanlal Nahata, (1987) 3 SCC 705 ) and ( Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Prafulla Kumar Roychowdhury and another, (2004) 3 CalHN 399 ). 5. In reply learned advocate appearing for the defendant No. 1 has submitted that, the ratio of Smt. Nandita Bose (supra) is not attracted in view of such judgement being rendered prior to the Act of 1997. The definition of tenant has undergone changes under the Act of 1997. 6. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit for the eviction of the three defendants from the suit properties. The plaintiff had let out two flats to one Mrs. O. S. Martin, since deceased. The plaintiff has pleaded that, by a letter dated August 21, 2017, the defendant No. 1 had sent a cheque towards rent for the month of July 2017, August 2017 and September 2017 with a request to issue a rent receipt in the name of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff had refused to do so. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 had inducted the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 illegally into one of the flats. The plaintiff has claimed that the defendant No. 1 trespassed and illegally occupied two rooms on the ground floor of the property apart from the two flats. The plaintiff has claimed that the occupation of the defendant No. 1 in various portions of the immovable property concerned and as described in Schedules I to Schedule IV of the plaint are illegal. The plaintiff has claimed eviction of the defendants as also decree for mense profits. 7. Smt. Nandita Bose (supra) has considered the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and held that, ordinarily the valuation of the suit depends upon the reliefs claimed therein and that, the plaintiff's valuation in his plaint determines the Court in which it can be presented. But the plaintiff cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court by either grossly overvaluing or grossly undervaluing the suit. But the plaintiff cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court by either grossly overvaluing or grossly undervaluing the suit. The Court has jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of process of law. In the facts of that case, it has held that, the question whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim mense profits could not have been disposed of at a preliminary stage even before the trial had commenced. That question has to be decided at the conclusion of the trial along with other issues arising in the suit. 8. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra) has considered the provisions of Section 7 of the West Bengal Court-Fees Act, 1970. It is held that, a plaintiff cannot claim any other relief on the basis of annual rackrent since the relief relating to claim for arrears and mense profits would be a relief for which separate Court-fee is payable under Section 7 (i) of the Act of 1970. In the facts of that case, it has found that, the suit was for recovery of immovable property as well as for sums payable periodically and damages. It has observed that, valuation of suit can be made by the plaintiff according to his own estimation and such valuation has to be accepted ordinarily is the settled position of law. 9. Ranjit Kumar Sengupta (supra) has considered Section 7 of the West Bengal Court Fees Act 1970. In the facts of that case, it has held that, the suit is to be valued on the basis of yearly rent payable at the time of initiation of the proceeding. 10. The cause of action as pleaded in the plaint has disclosed that, the plaintiff is seeking eviction of the defendants from the suit property on the basis of the defendants being in illegal and unauthorised occupation of the suit properties. The defendant No. 1 has set up a defence of being an heir of the deceased tenant. Such defence has to be considered at the trial and at best may succeed in respect of one flat. The plaintiff has claims as against the defendants in respect of the other flat and other portions of the immovable property in occupation of the defendants. In respect of such portions, the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendants have trespassed therein cannot be discounted at this stage without a trial taking place. The plaintiff has claims as against the defendants in respect of the other flat and other portions of the immovable property in occupation of the defendants. In respect of such portions, the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendants have trespassed therein cannot be discounted at this stage without a trial taking place. The claim of the plaintiff for mense profits as against the defendants in respect of such areas of the suit property, at the very least, again cannot be said to be without any basis. A part of the plaint cannot be rejected. The suit properties are located at a posh locality in the city of Kolkata. Mense profits for any of the Schedule I to Schedule IV of the plaint, describing the suit properties would vest the Court with pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, it cannot be said that the suit has been improperly valued. 11. In view of the discussions above, both the applications by the defendants fail. IA No.GA 2 of 2021 and IA No. GA 3 of 2021 in CS No. 14 of 2021 are dismissed without any order as to costs.