HARI BHAN Vs. KRISHEN GOPAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Defendant's application in revision arising out of an order of the learned Munsif, Mathura, whereby he held, inter alia, that the claim in the suit had been correctly valued and that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

(2.) THE Plaintiff -opposite -parties claimed a decree for possession over land, including buildings standing thereon, together with arrears of rent for certain period and damages for use and occupation for the subsequent period, on the assertion that Sri Chander Bhan, the predecessor in interest of the Defendants, had entered possession as a tenant under a contract of tenancy on certain terms which included one to the effect that such buildings, as may be raised by the tenant during the period of his occupation as tenant, shall revert to the landlord on certain conditions which need not be detailed herein. Plaintiffs' case was that the tenant had raised certain constructions, that the contract of tenancy had come to an end, that the Defendants were not trespassers and that the Plaintiffs were entitled to resume possession of the property let out along with buildings raised by the tenant, as also to realise arrears of rent for the period during which the tenancy subsisted together with damages for use and occupation for the subsequent period. The suit was valued, for purposes of jurisdiction, at an amount which was well within the pecuniary jurisdiction exercised by the learned Munsif. In defence it was pleaded, inter alia, that the constructions raised by the Defendants were of considerable value and that if the value of those constructions was taken into consideration, the value of the claim set forward in Plaintiffs' behalf was bound to exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction exercised by the learned Munsif. The eighth issue framed by the court below was as to whether the court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. This issue was decided by the order sought to be revised by this petition. The contention raised on Defendants behalf that for purposes of jurisdiction market value of the property should have been taken into consideration was negatived by the learned Munsif on the view that it was a suit by a landlord against the heirs of a tenant under a registered document of lease for a fixed term and was, therefore, covered by Clause (xi) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act with the result that for purposes of jurisdiction it was not required to be valued at the market value of the property as provided in Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act.

(3.) IT is true that on the plaint allegations relationship of landlord and tenant no longer existed between the parties and the Defendants were described as trespassers. It is equally true that on the plaint allegations the Defendants' predecessor -in -interest had been put into possession under a contract of tenancy. The position, therefore, is that this is a suit by an ex -landlord against ex -tenants and the question is whether or not to such a suit the provisions contained in Clause (xi) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act are applicable. Sub -clause (cc) of Clause (xi) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act provides for a suit between a landlord and a tenant for recovery of immoveable property from a tenant including a tenant holding over after determination of tenancy. I am of the opinion that the learned Munsif was right in relying upon this provision for deciding the question of valuation for purposes of jurisdiction.