1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) Friday, the 22nd day of July 2011 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH A.No.7266 OF 2010 in C.S.No.838 of 2010 M/S.SOUTHERN TRIPLE A INVESTMENTS PVT LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.NATARAJAN ANBUMANI, FLAT NO.8, SARAVANALAYAM, NEW NO.33, (OLD NO.19), P.S.SIVASAMY SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI -4. ..PLAINTIFF. Vs M/S.OMNE AGATE SYSTEMS PVT LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.K.R.ILANGHOVAN, 2ND FLOOR, MURUGESA NAICKER COMPLEX, NO.99, GREAMS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006. ..DEFENDANT. A.No.7266 OF 2010: M/S.OMNE AGATE SYSTEMS PVT LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.K.R.ILANGHOVAN, 2ND FLOOR, MURUGESA NAICKER COMPLEX, NO.99, GREAMS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006. ...APPLICANT -VS- M/S.SOUTHERN TRIPLE A INVESTMENTS PVT LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.NATARAJAN ANBUMANI, FLAT NO.8, SARAVANALAYAM, NEW NO.33, (OLD NO.19), P.S.SIVASAMY SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI -4. ...RESPONDENT This Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to reject the plaint filed in the above Suit in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 C.S.No.838 of 2010 with costs. This Application coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order: This application has been filed by the applicant / defendant to reject the plaint filed in C.S.No.838 of 2010 with costs. 2.Heard Mr.P.Anbarasan, learned counsel for the applicant / defendant and Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant would submit in his argument that the suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of alleged arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.26,60,968/- with interest as claimed in the plaint. He would further submit in his argument that the applicant had already paid a sum of Rs.14,19,600/- to the respondent as advance on the date of agreement and it was available at the hands of the plaintiff on the date of filing of the suit. But while calculating the interest for the suit amount, he did not opt to deduct the said advance amount from the alleged arrears, and he had calculated on higher interest rate at 24% p.a on the outstanding amount and had swelled the suit claim so as to bring it to the jurisdiction of this Court. He would further submit in his argument that if the advance amount at the hands of the plaintiff was deducted over the outstanding amount on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 date of the suit, the remaining amount would be a lesser one and even if the calculation was done at the said higher rate of interest at 24% p.a, the total suit claim would be lesser, to the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said plaint and therefore, the plaint should have been rejected on that sole ground. He would further submit in his argument that such a suit claim, which is not admitted, would be at Rs.12,39,468/-, whereas the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court would be more than Rs.25,00,000/-. He would further submit in his argument that the decision of the learned Rent Controller or the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is not final, when the Civil Court has seized of the matter and therefore, the claim for the imaginary amount of Rs.26,60,968/- with subsequent interest at 24% p.a will not sustain. He would further submit in his argument that the applicant has made several improvements and had also spent moneys for improving the premises and for the functioning of the applicant company to the tune of Rs.6,89,636/- and the said amount, if deducted, the suit claim would further be reduced below Rs.25,00,000/-. He would therefore request the Court to reject the plaint as not sustainable before this Court and thus to allow the application. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit in his argument that the adjustment of the advance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 available at the hands of the respondent / plaintiff for a sum of Rs.14,39,600/- was not agitated by the applicant / defendant before the learned Rent Controller in application filed under Section 11(4)of the Act by the respondent and therefore, the admitted arrears were directed to be paid as against the applicant and it was not complied with and the appeal preferred by the applicant before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority was also dismissed, confirming the finding of the learned Rent Controller in directing the applicant to pay the admitted arrears and the applicant had neither comply with the said order nor preferred any revision and therefore, the order of the learned Rent Controller became final and eviction was ordered and on the basis of the order of eviction, the respondent took possession of the demised premises from the applicant in the process of law. He would further submit in his argument that the adjustment of advance amount was not agitated by the applicant in the revision and therefore, he cannot plead the said fact here and the finding of the learned Rent Controller as arrears on the said date would bind against the applicant and therefore, the applicant is liable to pay the interest towards the outstanding amount. He would also submit that after calculation of the outstanding amount with interest upto the date of filing of the suit, the advance amount available at the hands of the respondent could be deducted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 from the suit claim and therefore, there is nothing wrong in the calculation made in the plaint and it was promptly calculated and accepted by the Court by taking the plaint on file. He would further submit in his argument that the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant as to the question of defective jurisdiction could only be ascertained after recording evidence and thus, issues are triable in nature. He would further submit that such triable issues cannot be decided in an application to reject the plaint and an order could not be passed in the application itself. He would further submit in his argument that the request of the applicant to reject the plaint would not be attracted under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. He would further request the Court to dismiss the application. 5. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 6. The admitted case of both parties would be that the applicant was a tenant under the respondent in respect of the demised premises for a monthly rent of Rs.1,43,980/- and it was enhanced to Rs.1,58,356/- from July 2009 and till the date of eviction of the applicant through Court, the said rate of rent was paid by the applicant to the respondent. It is also not disputed that a RCOP was filed for eviction of the applicant and in the said proceedings the application under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was filed and it was ordered by the learned Rent Controller to deposit certain amount towards admitted arrears and against which, the applicant preferred appeal before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and the order passed by the learned Rent Controller was confirmed in the said appeal and the same was dismissed. Admittedly, no revision has been preferred against the said order. According to the submission of the respondent, since the applicant did not prefer any revision against the finding of the learned Rent Controller and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the adjustment of advance amount towards the arrears of rent on the date of filing of the suit cannot be done now. However, it was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the advance paid by the applicant for a sum of Rs.14,39,600/- which was available at the hands of the respondent should have been first applied for the adjustment of arrears of rent and thereafter, the said arrears could have been subjected for the calculation of interest payable to the respondent. It was also contended by the applicant that there was no contractual arrangement for payment of interest at 24% p.a on the arrears of rent. 7. The only point to be decided in this case would be whether this Court ascertain the quantum of arrears payable by the applicant to the respondent now itself and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7 to come to a conclusion regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, in order to find the feasibility of rejection of the plaint. For that, we have to resort to the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The said provision in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC would run as follows:- " Order 7 Rule 11 CPC : - Rejection of Plaint: The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; b) where the relief claimed is under-valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to so correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; e)where it is not filed in duplicate; f)where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9; Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8 valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp – papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp – papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff." 8.The grounds raised by the applicant for rejection of the plaint is purely depending upon the excess value of the plaint. Further reasons stated would be that the expenditure incurred by him for improving the premises for running his Company at Rs.6,89,636/- if deducted, it would come below the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, namely, Rs.25,00,000/- and on that score, the plaint is not sustainable. Similarly, it has also been urged that the interest calculated on the total arrears of amount was not sustainable since the advance amount was available with the respondent on the date of filing of the suit and therefore, if interest is calculated after leaving the advance amount, it would further reduce the suit claim to the level of Rs.12,39,468/-. No doubt, all these grounds raised by the applicant require oral evidence in support of their claims. Even if the claim of the applicant are accepted in toto, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9 the excess valuation of the plaint, if reduced, it will result in transfer of the suit to the appropriate pecuniary jurisdictional Court. All these grounds raised by the applicant did not attract any of the provisions as contemplated in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Hence, the request of the applicant seeking the rejection of the plaint at this stage is not at all acceptable. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the application is devoid of merits and accordingly, the application is dismissed. However, the grounds raised by the applicant can be agitated in the suit without being influenced by this order. 8.For the foregoing discussion, the application is dismissed. No costs. Sd/-V.P.K.J 22.07.2011 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2011. R.s/17.11.2011 COURT OFFICER From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/