CS(OS) No. 1534/2010 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No. 1534/2010 Date of Decision: August 25, 2010 VIRENDER KUMAR KANOSTIA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, Advocate. versus GAURAV GOSSAIN & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: None. % CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH (1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? (2) To be referred to the reporter or not? (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ARUNA SURESH, J. (ORAL) CS(OS) No. 1534/2010 and IA Nos.9963/2010 (Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Sec. 151 CPC), 9964/2010 (Order 7 Rule 14 r/w. Sec. 151 CPC) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession by way of ejectment and recovery of rent, mesne profits/damages and also permanent injunction alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum against the Defendants. Defendant No.3, Station House Officer of Police Station Vikas Puri has been impleaded as co- Defendant, though he has no concern with the property in suit. CS(OS) No. 1534/2010 Page 2 of 5 2. Plaintiff is the owner of DDA MIG flat bearing No. AG-186-B, First Floor, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. He let out the said flat to Defendant No.1 on 13.08.2004 through his attorney for a period of eleven months w.e.f. 1.09.2004 till 31.07.2005, on a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/-. Defendant No.2 happened to be the paternal Aunt of Defendant No.1 and is residing with Defendant No.1 in the suit property. Since the tenancy of Defendant No.1 is stated to have been terminated, he filed the present suit. In para 21 of the plaint, Plaintiff has valued his suit for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction as under:- Sl. No. Relief Amount Court Fee 1. Relief of possession Rs.20,50,000/- Rs.22352/- 2. For the relief of damages / mesne profits @ Rs.6,000/-per month for the period w.e.f. 01.11.2004 till 30.06.2010 against the illegal and unauthorized occupation & usage of the suit property. Rs.4,08,000/- Rs.6350/- 3. Relief of perpetual prohibitory / mandatory injunction Rs.200/- Rs.20/- TOTAL Rs.28,730/- He has paid the requisite Court fees of Rs.28,750/-. 3. Admittedly, this is a suit for possession filed by the Plaintiff in CS(OS) No. 1534/2010 Page 3 of 5 respect of suit property which was rented out to Defendant No.1. Therefore, the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fees in a suit for possession filed by the landlord against the tenant after expiry of tenancy is governed by Section 7 (xi) (cc) of the Court Fees Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 4. Section 7 of the act sets out how court fees is to be computed upon certain suits. By reason thereof on a suit between landlord and tenant for the recovery of immoveable property from the tenant, the Court fees is to be paid according to the amount of the rent of the immoveable property to which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. The allegations and averments made in the plaint and relief sought determines the character of the suit for the purposes of court fees payable thereon. 5. In the present case, plaintiff in the plaint has sought the relief of eviction of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from the suit property upon averment that he was the landlord and Defendant No.1 was his tenant and was in arrears of rent. Therefore, the suit could only be valued as an eviction suit. 6. Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, counsel for the plaintiff has urged that since Defendant No.2 is living with Defendant No.1, he was within his right to value the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction on the basis of market value of the suit property. He has referred CS(OS) No. 1534/2010 Page 4 of 5 to:- (i) ‘Annada Prasad Singha Roy vs. Nanda Lal Chakravorty & Ors., AIR 1956 Tripura 17; (ii) ‘Nanikram D. Teckchandani vs. Pt. Dhannalal & Anr.’, AIR 1953 Ajmer 28; and (iii) ‘Smt. Shanti Devi vs. Amal Kumar Banerjee’, AIR 1981 SC 1550. 7. None of these judgments, to my mind, are of any help to the Plaintiff under the facts and circumstances of this case. Defendant No.2 is not alleged to be a trespasser. She is residing in the suit premises with Defendant No.1 being his aunt. Therefore, plaintiff is governed by Section 7 (xi) (cc) of the Act. 8. Plaintiff should have valued the suit for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction at the annual rent of the premises being Rs.5,000/- per month which come to Rs.60,000/- and therefore valuation for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction would be Rs.60,000/-. He has also claimed damages @ Rs.6,000/- per month for the period from 1.11.2004 to 30.06.2004 amounting to Rs.4,08,000/-. He has valued the suit for the relief of injunction at Rs.200/- . Therefore, the total value of the suit is less than Rs.5,00,000/-. 9. It is submitted by counsel for the Plaintiff that Section 4 of the Court Fees Act would not be attracted in a case where there is over CS(OS) No. 1534/2010 Page 5 of 5 valuation of the suit and the plaint cannot be rejected. The party cannot be permitted to fix valuation arbitrarily, where there are positive materials and objective standard for valuation of the relief appearing on the face of the plaint. In the present case, Plaintiff or the court can reasonably value the relief correctly on certain definite and positive materials available in the plaint. Plaintiff cannot be permitted to put an arbitrary valuation de-hors such objective standard or material. Plaintiff, under the circumstances, cannot be permitted to put an arbitrary valuation so as to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Since the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction is less than Rs.5,00,000/-, this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. 11. It is accordingly directed that the plaint be returned to the Plaintiff alongwith original documents, if any, within six weeks in accordance with provisions contained under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC to be presented before the proper Court of competent jurisdiction within two weeks thereafter. 12. File be consigned. ARUNA SURESH (JUDGE) AUGUST 25, 2010 vk