HARILAL Vs. KAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question that arises for consideration is whether the court-fees paid by the plaintiff is proper, and the question arises in this way. The plaintiffs (non-applicants Nos. 1 to 5) filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yavatmal, for ejectment, alleging that defendant No. 1 was their tenant and that this tenancy was validly determined after obtaining the written permission of the Rent Controller, Yavatmal. It was further alleged that after filing the plaint, when the plaintiffs went home, they found that defendant No. 1 removed his articles from the premises which were in his occupation of the same. They, therefore, impleaded defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit and claimed possession.

(2.) Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 11, Rule 7 of the Civil P. C. for rejection of the plant, on the ground that it was not property valued. According to him, since the possession of defendants No. 2 and 3 was alleged as unauthorised, illegal and that of trespassers, the suit should have been valued on the basis of the market value of the property under Section 6(1)(v) of the Bombay Court-fees Act.

(3.) The learned trial Judge found that the plaint was properly valued under Section 6(xii)(d) of the Bombay Court-fees Act and rejected the application and, hence, this revision at the instance of original defendant No. 2. 3-A Shri Oka, the learned counsel for the applicant, first referred to Nanikram v. Petitioner. Dhannalal, (AIR 1953 Ajmer 28 (1)). There, the court-fees was paid on the full value of the house and not on annual rent. It was alleged that the defendant No. 2, who a the tenant, on his transfer, did not deliver possession and at his instigation and collusion, the defendant No. 1 occupied the house without the consent of the plaintiff. During the hearing of the case, the defendant No. 1 delivered possession of the house and the dispute left to be decided was only about costs. Scrutinising the plaint allegation, it was ultimately found that the plaint nowhere showed that the defendant No. 1 was he sub-tenant of defendant No. 2. The case of defendant No 2 was that the defendant No. 1 had, in fact, deceived him by telling him that the plaintiff had given him permission to occupy the house. the plaint, thus, clearly showed that though there was collusion alleged, the defendant No. 1 was not the agent, representative or sub-tenant of defendant No. a2 and as such the court-fee was rightly paid on the full value of the house and not on the annual rent only.