VINOD KUMAR Vs. MUKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF/respondent has instituted a suit for eviction against the defendant/petitioner on the grounds under section 12 (l) (a) and (f) of the m. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. It has been pleaded that the defendant/ petitioner obtained the suit premises vide registered lease deed dated 29-8-1997 for a period of Five years on rent w. e. f. 1-9-1997, which was fixed at Rs. 1,000/-per month for a period of first two and half years and for remaining two and half years, it was settled at Rs. 1200/- per month. It is further pleaded that according to the lease deed, the defendant/petitioner was required to handover back the possession of the suit premises on 31-8-2002. In case of non-delivery of vacant possession, the defendant-tenant was liable to pay Rs. 200/- per day as mesne profit. The plaint has been valued at Rs. 1,28,500/- in the following manner :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_213_MPLJ1_2008Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) THE defendant/petitioner submitted his written statement raising thereby various pleas. Inter-alia, it has been stated in the written statement that the defendant was not inducted in the suit premises vide rent note (lease deed) dated 29-8-1997. This apart, it has been further stated that clause pertaining to payment of Rs. 200/- per day as mesne profit is absolutely illegal and is not enforceable.

(3.) THEREAFTER, the defendant/petitioner submitted an application under order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating thereby that the plaintiff has grossly over-valued the suit. The Court of Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction because the suit ought to have been filed in the Court of Civil Judge. Moreover, the defendant/petitioner would also lose his right of appeal to the court of District Judge.