A P MAHESHWARI Vs. ARYA VIR BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this revision petition is the defendant in Suit No. 44 of 1998 pending in the Court of Shri Satnam Singh, Additional District Judge, Delhi. The respondents herin are the plaintiffs in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs were the landlords of property bearing Municipal No. C-2, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi and the defendant was the tenant in respect of the said property. When the tenant refused to vacate the premises even after the expiry of the period of tenancy and also failed to pay the arrears of rent the plaintiffs filed the suit praying for a decree for possession of the suit property and also a decree for Rs.1 lakh with future interest at 18% per annum. The said sum of Rs. 1 lakh was claimed towards arrears of rent for the period from 1.1 .'1989 till 31.10.1990. For the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction the suit was valued as hereunder:

(3.) By an interim order dated 19.10.94 the trial court directed the defendant to pay all arrears of rent within one month and to continue paying the rent month by month by 15th of each month. In compliance with the said order dated 19.10.1994 the defendant paid the arrears of rent and continued to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 5,000.00 . On 2.4.1998 the defendant filed an application under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code stating that on the basis of interim order dated 19.10.1994 the plaintiffs had already recovered more than Rs. 4,50,000.00 without payment of the requisite Court fee. The defendant prayed that immediate remedial action be ordered by the trial court for the recovery of the balance Court fee. It was also prayed that further proceedings in the case be stayed till the balance court fee was recovered from the plaintiffs. On 17.4.1998 the defendant filed another application under Section 11,17 and 10 of the Court fees Act read with Sections 9 and 151 Civil Procedure Code . In the said application the defendant stated that the compliance of the trial Court's orderdated19.10.1994resulted in the recovery of an amount exceeding Rs. 6 lakhs, creating an anomalous situation in which the jurisdiction of the Court was ousted since the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of the Additional District Judge was only upto Rs. 5 lakhs. It was also stated that as per section 11 of the Court fees Act, no decree could be drawn without the payment of the difference of the Court fee actually paid and the Court fee which would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the amount to be decreed. The defendant prayed that the plaintiffs be directed to pay the balance Court fee. It was also prayed that after realisation of the Court fee the plaint should be returned to the plaintiffs for filing it in the proper Court since the Court of the ADJ would be left with no jurisdiction in the case. Both the application were contested by the plaintiffs by filing reply to each of the applications. The plaintiff disputed the contention that the trial court lost its jurisdiction as a result of the payments made by the, defendant in compliance with the interim order dated 19.10.1994. Regarding payment of Court fee the plaintiffs stated that they were and had always been ready and willing to deposit such court fee which would become payable once a decree was passed. The plaintiffs also contended that the interim order dated 19.10.1994 was passed by the trial court keeping in view the settled law that no person (an extenant or a trespasser) should be prmitted to contest a case without paying at least the admitted amount during the pendency of litigation. According to the plaintiffs the amounts paid by the defendant in compliance with the order dated 19.10.1994 would ultimately be adjusted against the total mesne profits decreed by the Court. The above mentioned two applications were dismissed by the trial court through a common order dated 20.5.1998. The said order dated 20.5.1998 of the trial court is underchallenge in this revision petition.