PRAVESH MIGLANI Vs. PUNAM ANAND KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment, recovery of money of Rs. 36,767/ -, use and occupation charges/mesne profit and interest against the Petitioner/defendant. In the plaint it was pleaded that late Mrs. Veena Paintal had let out the premises to the Petitioner/Defendant for residential purposes at monthly rent of Rs. 55,00/ - vide Lease Deed dated 29th June, 2000 for a period of 11 months which expired on 31st May, 2001 and thereafter there was no renewal of the Lease Deed though the rent was being paid from month to month basis. Mrs. Veena Paintal terminated the tenancy of the Petitioner/Defendant in respect of the said premises by virtue of the legal notice dated 10th November, 2001 however, the Petitioner failed to vacate the premises. Mrs. Veena Paintal filed a suit for ejectment against the Petitioner/Defendant which was decided in favour of Mrs. Veena Paintal vide judgment dated 19th September, 2009. In an appeal filed by the Petitioner the said judgment of the learned Civil Judge was set aside and the suit was dismissed on the ground that the notice of termination of tenancy dated 10th November, 2001 could not be proved. Mrs. Veena Paintal again issued a legal notice dated 24th February, 2010 however, despite the said notice the Petitioner/Defendant failed to vacate the premises. Before Mrs. Veena Paintal could initiate proceedings she passed away on 4th April, 2010. In terms of the registered Will dated 6th October, 2006 of Mrs. Veena Paintal, the Plaintiff/Respondent herein became the sole and exclusive owner of the premises and thus filed the suit. To avoid any complication before filing the suit, the Respondent/Plaintiff issued a fresh legal notice dated 6th May, 2010 to the Petitioner/Defendant who still failed to vacate the premises.

(2.) IN the suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff, following prayers were made:

(3.) THE Petitioner/Defendant in the written statement took a preliminary objection that the Respondent/plaintiff has not been able to show how the value of relief of injunction has been fixed at Rs. 3,35,000/ - thereby taking out the suit from the Court of lowest pecuniary jurisdiction being the competent Court. Relying on Section 15 of CPC it was stated that the suit was not maintainable and it ought to have been filed in the Court of competent jurisdiction of the lowest grade to try it. Despite this preliminary objection no issue regarding maintainability of the suit in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction was framed and thus the Petitioner/Defendant filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC on which the following additional issue was framed: