SASHI PRASAD GOENKA Vs. STEELCO SYNDICATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for eviction and mesne profits.

(2.) In this suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits, the plaintiff contends that the tenancy of the defendant No.1 expired on efflux of time on May 31, 2008. Although, the plaintiff was not obliged to give any notice to quite, by three several letters dated May 29, 2008, July 8, 2008 and August 1, 2008 respectively, the plaintiff called upon the defendants to vacate the said flat and demanded mesne profits of Rs.3 lacs a month. The plaintiff alleged that on and from June 1, 2008, the defendants were in wrongful and unauthorized occupation of the suit flat and had failed to pay the maintenance charges for March, April and May, 2008. The plaintiff further asserted that on and from June 1, 2008, the defendant was liable to pay Rs.3 lacs a month as mesne profits. The details of claim of the plaintiff is particularized in Paragraph 14 of the plaint.

(3.) The defendant in the written statement raised amongst others the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit has not been arbitrarily valued. The Court has no jurisdiction to try, decide and determine the dispute. It is further alleged that the monthly tenancy created on 21st August, 2005 continued even after expiry of 33 months as mentioned in the tenancy agreement dated 21st August, 2005. In or about May, 2008, it was mutually agreed by and between the plaintiffs and the predecessor-in-interests of the defendant No.1 that the rent of the said premises would be enhanced at the rate of 20 per cent over and above the existing rent of Rs.60,000/- (sixty thousand) on and from June, 2008 and, accordingly, on and from June, 2008, the defendant No.1 became liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.72,000/- per month according to English Calendar year. The defendants on the basis of such alleged mutual agreement tendered the enhanced rent in August, 2008 but the plaintiffs had refused to accept the said rent. The plaintiff has no right to dispossess the defendants on the basis of the three several notices inasmuch as the nature of tenancy of the defendant in respect of the suit premises is month by month and, accordingly, the question of expiry of tenancy by efflux of time could not and does not arise. Initially, the defendants after expiry of one year three months from the date of the institution of the suit filed an application on 27th January, 2010 seeking an order for return of the plaint to be presented in the Court in which the suit according to the defendants should have been instituted on the ground that the basis of the valuation as furnished in the plaintiff for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction was contrary to law inasmuch as the plaintiff had wrongfully purported to include the mesne profits for determination of the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction. The plaintiff has wrongfully described the said defendants as trespasser and intentionally inflated the value of the suit property for the purpose of bringing the suit in a Court different from that in which it would lie if it were properly valued.