S MAKHAN SINGH Vs. AMARJEET BALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 22nd November, 2007 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby an application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this petition are that the respondent filed an Eviction Petition alleging that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of premises at Rs. 500/- per month including water and electricity charges. This tenancy was from month-to-month. The petitioner stopped paying rent to the respondent from January, 1989. The respondent then sent a legal notice dated 17. 10. 2000 claiming arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy of the petitioner.

(3.) THIS notice was duly replied by the petitioner vide reply dated 9th November, 2006 wherein petitioner denied the title of the respondent over the suit property and set up a title in himself and his wife. After this denial of title by the petitioner herein, the respondent filed a suit for possession of the property in Civil Court. During the pendency of this suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act. The other ground pressed by the petitioner was that the plaintiff/respondent had not valued the suit properly for purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. The Trial court observed that since the petitioner had denied the very title of the respondent and relationship of landlord and tenant, the petitioner could not take a plea that he was a protected tenant under Delhi Rent Control Act. Similarly, the Trial Court observed that since the plaintiff had claimed possession from erstwhile tenant who was a tenant by sufferance, the valuation of suit has to be done on the basis of annual rent the property was fetching and the valuation was not bad in law.