Delhi High Court
Virender Kumar Kanostia vs Gaurav Gossain & Ors. on 25 August, 2010
Author: Aruna Suresh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) No. 1534/2010
Date of Decision: August 25, 2010
VIRENDER KUMAR KANOSTIA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, Advocate.
versus
GAURAV GOSSAIN & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: None.
% CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the
judgment?
(2) To be referred to the reporter or not?
(3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
ARUNA SURESH, J. (ORAL)
CS(OS) No. 1534/2010 and IA Nos.9963/2010 (Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w
Sec. 151 CPC), 9964/2010 (Order 7 Rule 14 r/w. Sec. 151 CPC)
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession by way of ejectment
and recovery of rent, mesne profits/damages and also permanent
injunction alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per
annum against the Defendants. Defendant No.3, Station House
Officer of Police Station Vikas Puri has been impleaded as co-
Defendant, though he has no concern with the property in suit.
2. Plaintiff is the owner of DDA MIG flat bearing No. AG-186-B, First
Floor, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. He let out the said flat to Defendant
No.1 on 13.08.2004 through his attorney for a period of eleven
months w.e.f. 1.09.2004 till 31.07.2005, on a monthly rent of
Rs.5,000/-. Defendant No.2 happened to be the paternal Aunt of
Defendant No.1 and is residing with Defendant No.1 in the suit
property. Since the tenancy of Defendant No.1 is stated to have been
terminated, he filed the present suit. In para 21 of the plaint, Plaintiff
has valued his suit for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction as
under:-
Sl. Relief Amount Court Fee
No.
1. Relief of possession Rs.20,50,000/- Rs.22352/-
2. For the relief of damages / mesne Rs.4,08,000/- Rs.6350/-
profits @ Rs.6,000/-per month
for the period w.e.f. 01.11.2004
till 30.06.2010 against the illegal
and unauthorized occupation &
usage of the suit property.
3. Relief of perpetual prohibitory / Rs.200/- Rs.20/-
mandatory injunction
TOTAL Rs.28,730/-
He has paid the requisite Court fees of Rs.28,750/-.
3. Admittedly, this is a suit for possession filed by the Plaintiff in
respect of suit property which was rented out to Defendant No.1.
Therefore, the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fees in a
suit for possession filed by the landlord against the tenant after
expiry of tenancy is governed by Section 7 (xi) (cc) of the Court Fees
Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').
4. Section 7 of the act sets out how court fees is to be computed upon
certain suits. By reason thereof on a suit between landlord and tenant
for the recovery of immoveable property from the tenant, the Court
fees is to be paid according to the amount of the rent of the
immoveable property to which the suit refers, payable for the year
next before the date of presenting the plaint. The allegations and
averments made in the plaint and relief sought determines the
character of the suit for the purposes of court fees payable thereon.
5. In the present case, plaintiff in the plaint has sought the relief of
eviction of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from the suit property upon
averment that he was the landlord and Defendant No.1 was his tenant
and was in arrears of rent. Therefore, the suit could only be valued as
an eviction suit.
6. Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, counsel for the plaintiff has urged that since
Defendant No.2 is living with Defendant No.1, he was within his
right to value the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction
on the basis of market value of the suit property. He has referred
to:-
(i) 'Annada Prasad Singha Roy vs. Nanda Lal Chakravorty &
Ors., AIR 1956 Tripura 17;
(ii) 'Nanikram D. Teckchandani vs. Pt. Dhannalal & Anr.', AIR
1953 Ajmer 28; and
(iii) 'Smt. Shanti Devi vs. Amal Kumar Banerjee', AIR 1981 SC
1550.
7. None of these judgments, to my mind, are of any help to the Plaintiff
under the facts and circumstances of this case. Defendant No.2 is not
alleged to be a trespasser. She is residing in the suit premises with
Defendant No.1 being his aunt. Therefore, plaintiff is governed by
Section 7 (xi) (cc) of the Act.
8. Plaintiff should have valued the suit for purposes of court fees and
jurisdiction at the annual rent of the premises being Rs.5,000/- per
month which come to Rs.60,000/- and therefore valuation for the
purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction would be Rs.60,000/-. He
has also claimed damages @ Rs.6,000/- per month for the period
from 1.11.2004 to 30.06.2004 amounting to Rs.4,08,000/-. He has
valued the suit for the relief of injunction at Rs.200/- . Therefore, the
total value of the suit is less than Rs.5,00,000/-.
9. It is submitted by counsel for the Plaintiff that Section 4 of the Court
Fees Act would not be attracted in a case where there is over
valuation of the suit and the plaint cannot be rejected. The party
cannot be permitted to fix valuation arbitrarily, where there are
positive materials and objective standard for valuation of the relief
appearing on the face of the plaint. In the present case, Plaintiff or
the court can reasonably value the relief correctly on certain definite
and positive materials available in the plaint. Plaintiff cannot be
permitted to put an arbitrary valuation de-hors such objective
standard or material. Plaintiff, under the circumstances, cannot be
permitted to put an arbitrary valuation so as to bring the suit within
the jurisdiction of this Court.
10. Since the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fees and
jurisdiction is less than Rs.5,00,000/-, this Court has no pecuniary
jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.
11. It is accordingly directed that the plaint be returned to the Plaintiff
alongwith original documents, if any, within six weeks in accordance
with provisions contained under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC to be
presented before the proper Court of competent jurisdiction within
two weeks thereafter.
12. File be consigned.
ARUNA SURESH
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 25, 2010
vk
