JANARDHAN MAKHAIK Vs. MARKET COMMITTEE SHIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard and gone through the record.

(2.) Petitioner, claiming himself to be tenant, in respect of a shop, owned by the respondent, has filed the present petition, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking an order, protecting his possession, pending adjudication of the dispute, which has arisen between the parties, by arbitration, in terms of Section 180 of the Himachal Pradesh Agriculture & Horticultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 2005. According to petitioner's own averments, the rate of rent is `1,000/- per month. Petitioner specifically alleges that he is a tenant/ lessee.

(3.) Petitioner is aggrieved by a notice of termination of lease, which has been termed as licence in the notice, served upon the petitioner by the respondent. That means, if the petitioner were to file a suit, seeking relief against the notice served upon him by the respondent, the valuation of the subject matter would have to be done, in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(v)(e) & (xi)(e) of the H.P. Court Fees Act, 1968. Alleged rent being `1,000/- per month, valuation of the subject matter would have been If that is so, the Court competent to `12,000/-. entertain and try the suit would have been that of the District Judge at Shimla, that Court being the Principal Civil Court.