AJAY KUMAR & ANOTHER Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 5.2.2016 rendered by the Judge, Small Causes Court/Second Additional Judge, Roorkee in SCC Case No.3 of 2015, titled as 'Sushil Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwal & another', whereby the Issue No.3 pertaining to the valuation of suit has been decided against the defendants/revisionists.

(2.) Having heard the rival contentions put forth by learned Counsel for either party, it seems that all out efforts on behalf of the tenants/ revisionists is to protract the proceedings of the S.C.C. Suit and further, to create every sort of impediment in getting it adjudicated in the Court of Additional District Judge.

(3.) That apart, the contention on behalf of the tenants is that in order to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, relief (b) has been claimed asking a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as mesne profits whereas the shop, in question, was initially given at the rate of Rs.500/- per month and later on, the rent was enhanced at the rate of Rs.600/- per month. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that due to the steep rise of commercialization in the growing towns, the shops, that too on the roadside, now have become very dearer and no alike shop can be procured on tenancy just at the meager rent of Rs.600/- or Rs.1000/- per month. This view is fortified by the report dated 13.10.2016 given by the Executive officer, Municipal Council, Manglore, District Haridwar, which is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent.