SUBRAMONIAM Vs. SUBRAMONIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these C. R. Ps. which arise out of the proceedings in O. S. No. 87 of 1973 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Trivandrum, the defendant in the suit is the petitioner. The suit is one for arrears of rent. One of the contentions of the petitioner is that the plaintiffs cannot claim any rent in view of the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant to pay interest at the rate of 12% for the amount lent and spent by him towards the cost of re-construction of the building concerned. The defendant could claim back the principal amount so advanced only at the time of eviction and not before The petitioner states that the amount spent by him will come to more than Rs. 1 1/2 lakh. As regards bis prayer for adjustment of the amount due to the defendant by way of interest to the plaintiffs' claim for rent, such amount being only periodical and unascertained the defendant paid court fee as per S.50 of the court Fees Act. The plaintiffs objected to the above valuation and after hearing the parties the court below passed an order directing the defendant to pay court fee on the amount which he seeks to set off against the plaint claim. The court further stated that since the amount is alleged to cover the plaint claim the court fee has to be paid on an amount equal to the plaint claim. It is from this order that CRP. No. 1117 of 1976 has been filed.

(2.) The petitioner had also sought the issue of a commission for ascertaining the value of improvements. This was dismissed by the court below on the ground that a Commission need be issued if necessary only after the decision of the question whether the defendant is entitled to adjust the claim by him and in that view the trial can be proceeded with and if it is found that the defendant is entitled to adjust towards the rent claimed, interest on amounts spent by him, if any, exceeding Rs. 20,000/- a preliminary decree can be passed directing the taking of accounts regarding the amount due to the defendant. The court below pointed out that a final decree can thereafter be passed in the suit. It is from these two orders that the revision petitions have been filed.

(3.) In regard to the question of payment of court fee, what is contended on behalf of the petitioner is that the contention in the written statement is that if what is due from the plaintiffs to the defendant are calculated, no tent is payable, the rent payable, being according to the calendar month and the interest also accrues in the same manner and therefore adjustment takes place at the end of every month. For understanding the case it will be necessary to look into the contentions in the written statement. It is the allegation therein that would settle whether the court fee is payable on the claim or not. I will quote herein below the relevant portions in the written statement: