JUDGMENT : Krishna Rao, J. 1. The defendants have filed the present application being G.A. No. 2 of 2023 under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for return of plaint on the pretext that the suit has not properly valued. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants for their eviction, recovery of possession and mesne profit. 3. Mr. Budhadeb Ghosal, Learned Advocate representing the defendants submits that the plaintiff has valued the mesne profit at the rate of Rs.3000/-per month upon his subjective view which is not correct. 4. Mr. Ghosal submits that suit has been arbitrarily valued in violation of the Court Fees Act, Suit Valuation Act for which necessary enquiry is to be made as provided under Section 7(IV)E and Sections 10 and 11 of the Court Fees Act for ascertaining the actual valuation of the suit. 5. Mr. Ghosal submits that mesne profits is a matter, consequential to the original relief which is an unascertained sum subject to the adjudication under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the same is not to be assessed as per Subjective Valuation suggested by the plaintiff. 6. Mr. Ghosal in support of his submissions relied upon judgment in the case of Jayantilal Ojha & Co. vs. Dalhousie Properties Ltd. reported in 70 CWN 55 and submitted that Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act does not apply to mesne profits for the period subsequent to the institution of the suit. 7. Mr. Ghosal relied upon judgment in the case of Pravin Chandra Ochhavlal vs. Girdharlal Govindji reported in 72 CWN 404 and submitted that mesne profit is not synonymous with rent and mesne profit cannot be equated with rent. 8. Mr. Ghosal also relied upon an unreported judgement passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in C.S. No. 252 of 2021 in the case of Kausick Auddy and Anr. vs. Uday Shah and Anr. dated 20th December, 2023 and submitted that provisions of Section 7(xii)(d) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 which includes even a tenant by holding over determination of a tenancy, the suit is to be valued according to the aggregate rent payable for 12 months immediately preceding to the filing of the suit. 9. Per Contra, Mr. dated 20th December, 2023 and submitted that provisions of Section 7(xii)(d) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 which includes even a tenant by holding over determination of a tenancy, the suit is to be valued according to the aggregate rent payable for 12 months immediately preceding to the filing of the suit. 9. Per Contra, Mr. Subhasish Sengupta, Learned Advocate representing the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and the plaintiff has valued the suit on the basis of a tentative mesne profit. He submits that the defendants are not the tenants under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and therefore, the defendants are liable to pay mesne profit immediately after the expiry of five years from 10th July, 2001 when the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 came into force. 10. Mr. Sengupta submitted that the defendants are not the tenant under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and their tenancy has not been terminated by giving notice under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. 11. Mr. Sengupta submits that cause of action in the plaint is ex-facie clear that the plaintiff is seeking eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the basis that the defendants are in illegal and unauthorised occupation of the suit premises. He submits that the defendants cannot claim themselves as tenants under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. 12. Mr. Sengupta submits that the plaintiff has assessed Rs.3000/-per day and has claimed on and from 27th December, 2020. The suit property is consisting of a space about 2000 Sq. Ft. on the first floor at the premises No. 19B, B.B. Ganguly Street which is a Commercial hub and the plaintiff has not grossly overvalued the suit. 13. Mr. Sengupta in support of his submissions relied upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Nandita Bose vs. Ratanlal Nahata reported in (1987) 3 SCC 705 and submitted that question whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim mesne profits or damages as per the claim made by the plaintiff could not have been disposed of at a preliminary stage even before the trial is commenced. The question has to be decided at the conclusion of trial along with other issues arising in the suit. 14. Mr. The question has to be decided at the conclusion of trial along with other issues arising in the suit. 14. Mr. Sengupta relied upon the judgment in the case of Sushil Kumar Jain & Ors. vs. Pilani Properties Limited reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 18807 and submitted that the intention of Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act is to regard heirs of the original tenant who were dependent on him and were residing with him at the time of his death as tenant for a period of five years. That would imply that for a period of five years from the death of the original tenant, the heirs of the original tenant who were dependent on the original tenant and were residing with him will be entitled to the same protection under Section 6 of the 1997 Act as the original tenant. However, such umbrella of protection is removed upon the conclusion of the fifth year from the date of death of the original tenant, in case the original tenant died after the 1997 Act came into effect. 15. Mr. Sengupta relied upon judgment in the case of Amalgamated Fuels Ltd. vs. Helen Alexina Rodgers Martin and Ors. reported in MANU/WB/0310/2021 and submitted that the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The defendants are in illegal occupation of the property and the defendants are liable to pay mesne profits is required to be decided in trial only. 16. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the materials on record and the judgments relied by the parties. The main contention of the defendants that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit property and only to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiff has grossly overvalued the suit. 17. As per plaint case, one Saha Bhagwandas Damani was the recorded monthly tenant under the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. After the death of Saha Bhagwandas Damani, the tenancy in the suit premises devolved upon his wife and son, namely, Kamala Bala Damani and Saha Bate Krishna Damani. 18. In the year 1978, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff initiated a suit being Ejectment Suit No. 73 of 1978 before the City Civil Court at Calcutta for eviction of Kamala Bala Damani and Saha Bate Krishna Damani on the allegation of sub-letting under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 18. In the year 1978, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff initiated a suit being Ejectment Suit No. 73 of 1978 before the City Civil Court at Calcutta for eviction of Kamala Bala Damani and Saha Bate Krishna Damani on the allegation of sub-letting under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. During the pendency of the suit, Kamala Bala Damani passed away on 5th December, 1986, leaving behind Saha Bate Krishna Damani as her only heir and legal representative. The said suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant or his predecessor-in-interest had sub-let the suit premises. 19. Against the order of dismissal, the plaintiff has filed an appeal. During the pendency of appeal, Saha Bate Krishna Damani died on 22nd November, 1993 and after his death, his surviving heirs and legal representatives were substituted. During the pendency of the appeal, on 10th July, 2001, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 came into force and by reason thereof, all the surviving heirs and legal representatives of the last recognized tenant, Saha Bate Krishna Damani, became trespasser on and from 10th July, 2006, i.e. after the expiry of five years from the date of coming into force of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 save and except the widow, namely, Arati Damani but she has passed away on 27th December, 2020. 20. The appeal filed by the plaintiff is dismissed for non-prosecution on 27th July, 2022 by holding that “if a fresh cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the same shall not be a res judicata or debar the plaintiff from filing a fresh suit under the 1997 Act”. 21. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants as wrongful occupiers of the suit property on and from 10th July, 2006 and in any event subsequent to 27th December, 2020. 22. The plaintiff has claimed that the defendants are the illegal occupiers of the suit property and if the plaintiff reasonable letting out the suit property, the letting out value would be Rs.3000/-per day. On the basis of the same, the plaintiff has claimed mesne profits from the defendants with effect from 27th December, 2020. 23. 22. The plaintiff has claimed that the defendants are the illegal occupiers of the suit property and if the plaintiff reasonable letting out the suit property, the letting out value would be Rs.3000/-per day. On the basis of the same, the plaintiff has claimed mesne profits from the defendants with effect from 27th December, 2020. 23. 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. 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 is 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. 24. 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 rack rent 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. 25. In the present case, the plaintiff is seeking eviction of the defendants from the suit property on the basis that the defendants are in illegal and unauthorised occupation of the suit property. The plaintiff has claimed that if the plaintiff would have let out the premises, the plaintiff would get Rs. 3000/-per day and accordingly, the plaintiff has valued the suit property. The plaintiff has claimed that if the plaintiff would have let out the premises, the plaintiff would get Rs. 3000/-per day and accordingly, the plaintiff has valued the suit property. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim mesne profits as per the claim made by the plaintiff could not have been disposed of at a preliminary stage even before the trial is commenced. The question has to be decided at the conclusion of trial along with other issues arising in the suit. 26. In view of the above, this Court did not find any merit in the application filed by the defendants. 27. G.A. No. 2 of 2023 is thus dismissed.