IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a suit filed by the landlord for evicting the tenant, the court fee should be paid on the rents payable and cannot take into consideration the security deposit, which are the advance amounts paid which he is required to refund to the tenant upon the tenant vacating the premises concerned.

ORDER :

1. The respondent claiming to be the owner of the suit schedule property and alleging that the petitioners are the tenants, filed O.S.No.256/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Mangaluru with the following prayer :

IV. That the Plaintiff values the subject matter and the relief claimed in this suit at Rs.7,50,000/-for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction, and herewith pays the Court Fee of Rs.48,375/-under Section 21 and 41(2) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act through the Banker's Cheque/D.D. dated 18.11.2016 No.000943 drawn on the Bank of Baroda, B.C. Road Branch, Bantwal.

V. That the Plaintiff hereby claims-

and valued the said suit at Rs.7,50,000/-and paid Court fee on the sum of Rs.7,50,000/-.

2. The petitioner raised an objection that the suit is not properly valued and the Civil Judge, Senior Division, has no jurisdiction to try the case and the plaint has to be presented before the Civil Judge, Junior Division. The trial Court on 12.04.2018, framed an additional issue as follows:

"Whether the defendants prove that the suit is improperly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?"

3. The trial Court treated the aforementioned issue as a preliminary issue and held that the suit has been properly valued by way of its order dated 25.09.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants therein have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The question that arises for consideration is what is the proper valuation of the suit given the nature of the prayers made by the respondent in the original suit.

5. The case of the respondent is that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and the same has been leased in favour of the petitioners herein and the tenancy has been terminated in accordance with law, but in spite of the same, the petitioners have not vacated the suit schedule property, because of which the respondent has filed O.S.No.256/2016. In the said suit, the respondent has contended that a sum of Rs.65,000/-is the annual rent to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent and that the petitioners had deposited a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-in favour of the respondent, which the respondent is liable to pay back to the petitioners upon they vacating the suit schedule property. Further, a sum of Rs.30,000/-is claimed to be payable by the petitioners to the respondent as mesne profits and further, a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards the cost of a legal notice and a future mesne profit of Rs.500/-per day from the date of filing of the suit. On the said ground, the suit has been valued at a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-and a Court fee is paid on the same.

6. The contention of the respondent is that the Court fee could not have been paid on a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-, which is the advance amount payable by the respondent to the petitioner at the time of vacating the property and he further submits that if that were to be the case, the suit should have been valued at Rs.1,00,000/-and the Civil Judge, Junior Division should try the case and not the Civil Judge, Senior Division where O.S.No.256/2016 has been filed.

7. Sections 21 and 41 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, which are the relevant provisions reads as under:

"21