AHMED BIN MOHAMMAD MEERA Vs. A DEVAJI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ths defendant is the petitioner herein. The relevant facts which led to this revision, may briefly be stated The defendant, on 30th November, 1962, entered into an agreement of lease with the plantiff, the respondent herein, regarding a site for a period of tea years, with reat at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. The lease was to be commenced from 1st June, 1965, and at the expiry of lease on 31st May, 1973, the defendant had to vacate the property so demised and the building or buildings erected by him thereon, keeping intact all the fittings to the said building or buildings without claiming any compensation, cost or expenses from the plaintiff or his representatives. When the term expired and a claim for handing over the said premises was rejected by the defendant, the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 212 of 1973 and also I. A. No. 26$ of 1973 for the appointment of a receiver. I. A. No. 268 of 1973 was allowed. As against that, C. M. A. No. 34 of 1973 was filed, which was, however, allowed on 10th April, 1974 on the ground that the agreement of lease is not admissible as it is unstamped and unregistered. With regard to the valuation of the suit made at the rate of Rs. 200 per month for 12 months, the defendent objected, stating that the prayer includes the handing over of possession of the buiding contructed ovsr the said site and, therefore, the value of the building also would have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of suit valuation and the consequent co arc-fee to be paid. This contenton was rejected by the first Court and the same was also confirmed by this Court in C. R. P. No. 1088 of 1973. Thereafter, however, the plaintif filed I. A. No. 135 of 1976 for the amendement of tne plaint convening the suit into one for specific performance of the agreement dated 30th November, 1962. This amendment was allowed. As against that, C. R P. No. 1467 of 1976 was preferred by the defendant and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, the structures on the site were valued at Rs. 70.000 additional written statement was filed after the amendment. Thereafter when the agreement of lease sought to be marked, an objection was taken by the defendant regarding its admissibility However, it was held admissible As against that, C.R.P. No 3497 of 1977 was filed by the defendant. In that C. R. P., on 6th March, 1979, it was held by this Court that the C R. P. may be withdrawn with liberty to the defendant to raise the objection at the proper time during the trial.

(2.) At the time of trial, an objection was raised by the defendant that the valuation of the suit made under section 39 (c) of the Andbra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is not proper, since the subject- matter of the suit included delivery of possession of the structures erected on the demised property, and that, therefore, section 39 (c) is the proper and relevant section. However, the lower Court held as under:

(3.) The only point that is germane and which falls for determination in this revision is, whether the suit in the present set up has been properly valued under section 39 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" or not.