NARINDER KUMAR SONI Vs. SUN SHINE ROADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff filed this suit for possession and recovery of mesne profit anddamages on the allegations that commencing from 1/04/1994 the premisescomprising of shop No. 3 left wing, ground floor of property No. 10/60-P, KirtiNagar Industrial Area, New Delhi, measuring 750 sq.ft., was let to the defendanton a rent of Rs. 4,080.00 p.m. The premises was let for a period of two years w.e.f. 1/04/1994 and on the expiry of the lease when the tenant did not vacate thesame, the plaintiff served three notices dated 6/04/1996: 16th April, 1996 and25 25/09/1996 terminating the tenancy of the premises, though, accordingto the plaintiff, on the expiry of the lease on 31/03/1996 no notice wasrequired to be served for termination of lease. After the termination of lease, theplaintiff filed this suit for possession as well as for damages/mesne profits from 1/04/1996 to 31/12/1996 at the rate of Rs. 12.000.00 per month. In theplaint, the plaintiff besides claiming a sum of Rs. 1,08,000.00 as the mesne profitshas also claimed possession. In paragraph 8 of the plaint while valuing the suit forpurposes of Court fee and jurisdiction, the plaintiff has stated as under :-

(2.) The value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction insofar as the relief ofpossession is concerned has been valued at Rs. 5,25,000.00 on the ground that thatis the market value of the property. After summons in the suit were served uponthe defendants, written statement was filed and one of the objections taken in thewritten statement was that the suit has not been properly valued for purposes ofCourt fee and jurisdiction.

(3.) On 7/01/1999 the Court observed that under Section 7(xi)(cc) of theCourt Fees Act in a suit for recovery of possession of an immovable property froma tenant whose tenancy has been terminated, the amount of Court fee payable isone year's rent. The valuation of the suit for purposes of Court fee and jurisdictionfixed at Rs. 5,25,000.00 appeared to the Court to be arbitrary. That is howarguments of learned counsel for the parties have been heard on the question as towhether the suit has been properly valued for purposes of Court fee andjurisdiction.