1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.188 OF 2010 Smt. Matabai Bhagwan & Ors. ...Applicants. v. Shri Shankar R. Chauhan & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. I.M.Vora i/by Bipin Joshi , advs. For the Applicants. Mr.R.D.Mishra, adv. For the Respondents. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 19, 2010 P.C. 1 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs and revision applicants and the respondent no.3 are the original defendants. Plaintiffs had earlier filed RAE and R Suit 40/74/1996 in the Small Causes Court for eviction and possession against the revision applicants. Ex-parte decree was passed by the judgment dated 15th June, 1998 and according to the plaintiffs, decree was executed on 12th December, 2001. Revision Applicants had vacated the premises and premises were locked by the landlord. Within a few days, Landlord noted that the lock was broken open and the revision applicants had again entered into the premises on 18.12.01 and taken forcible possession. Therefore, plaintiffs filed suit no.2245/02 for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Suit was valued at Rs.4,500/- on the basis of monthly rent, 2 which the defendants were paying as tenants earlier. Defendants contested the suit. Firstly according to them, decree was not executed and they were not dispossessed. They denied that they had taken forcible possession by breaking open lock. Secondly, they contended that value of the property was more than Rs.50,000/- and, therefore, the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction. Necessary issues were framed . The trial Court came to conclusion that decree was executed and the defendants had forcibly taken possession by breaking open the lock. The trial Court also rejected the plea of the defendants that the value of the property was more than Rs.50,000/-. The trial Court held that suit was properly valued. In the result, suit came to be decreed. That order is challenged in the present Revision Application. 2 The learned counsel for the parties makes a statement that later on, on application filed by the tenants, suit for eviction was restored to the file and ex-parte decree was set aside. After that, said suit for eviction was even withdrawn by the plaintiffs and, therefore, defendants continue to be tenants. Besides that the learned counsel for the revision applicants/defendants pointed out that the witness for the defendants had specifically deposed before the Court that value of the property was Rs.2 lac as per the Ready Reckoner and on this point, there was no cross- 3 examination. It is true that copy of the ready reckoner was not produced before the Court. Under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 , where the Court fees are payable ad-valorem under the Court Fees Act , value for the purpose of Court fee and for the purpose of jurisdiction shall be the same. Article 2 in Schedule 1 to the Bombay Court-fee Act provides that on a plaint in suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, fee of half of the amount prescribed in the scale under Article 1 shall be paid. Article 1 provides for ad-valorem fee on the basis of value of the property. It means that on the basis of value of the property, half of the ad-valorem fee would be required to be paid. The jurisdiction of the Court would be based on the value of the property. Plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs.4,500/-, being 150 times rent of Rs.30/- per month which the defendants were paying as tenants. In fact according to the plaintiffs, relationship of the landlord and the tenant had come to an end when the decree was passed and also when the decree was executed on 12th December, 2001. Decree was allegedly executed and the possession was given back to the landlord. After that there was no relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties. On 18th December, 2001 when the defendants allegedly took possession forcibly, it was an act of trespass and, therefore, the valuation could not 4 be made on the basis of monthly rent. It should have been made on the basis of value of the property and Court fee should have been paid as per article 2. Therefore, it is clear that trial Court committed an error in coming to conclusion that valuation on the basis of rent is correct. At the same time, I find that even though defendants had taken a plea that value of the property was more than Rs.50,000/- and the witness had deposed that value was Rs.2 lac as per the Ready Reckoner, the Ready Reckoner was never produced before the trial Court. It is not even produced before this Court. The learned counsel for the Applicants/Defendants makes a request that the matter may be remanded so that question of valuation may be re-considered by the trial Court. In view of the fact that suit for eviction has already been withdrawn and admittedly, defendants were tenants earlier and they are even now in possession of the same in my considered opinion, it will be in the interest of justice to remand the matter to give an opportunity to both the parties to lead proper evidence and hearing on the point of valuation of the property as well as tenability of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.. 3 For the aforesaid reasons, revision application is allowed. Impugned judgment and decree are hereby set aside. Suit No.2245/02 is hereby remanded back to the trial Court for hearing the parties again. In 5 view of the above observations, parties shall be allowed to lead the necessary oral and documentary evidence. In that respect, parties shall appear before the trial Court on 12th April, 2010. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)