The court upheld the trial court's ruling affirming that court fees must be assessed based on annual rent as specified in the lease agreement, rather than the market value of improvements made by the lessee.

ORDER :

(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.)

W.P.No.5573/2020 is filed seeking the following reliefs :

"(i) declare that the order dated 18.01.2020 passed on I.A.No.XII in O.S.No.322/2016 on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, produced at Annexure-J;

(ii) ALLOW this writ petition with costs."

2. W.P.No.5572/2020 is filed seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) declare that the order dated 18.01.2020 passed on I.A.No.XIII in O.S.No.322/2016 on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, produced at Annexure-J;

(ii) ALLOW this writ petition with costs."

3. Sri.Sridhar A.G., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed a suit against the petitioner and other respondents for judgment and decree of ejectment and damages. The petitioner has filed a detailed written statement denying the contents of the plaint and specifically contended that the Court fee paid by the respondent No.1 is insufficient and the said issue is required to be dealt as a preliminary issue. It is submitted that the petitioner filed an application in IA No.12 to consider issue No.4 as preliminary issue before recording the evidence. However, the trial Court without appreciating the fact that the premises, which was given on lease to the petitioner, was a vacant premises and thereafter the petitioner has put up a structure, hence, the respondent No.1 is liable to pay the Court fee on the market value of the said structure, the trial Court by incorrect finding rejected the application. It is further submitted that as per the lease agreement the property has been improved by putting up the structure and now that the respondent No.1 is seeking to take back the superstructure, hence, he is liable to pay the Court fee based on the market value and the present market value of the superstructure is Rs.6.00 Crores. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

4. It is also submitted that in W.P.No.5572/2020, the petitioner is assailing the order of the trial Court, wherein the petitioner's application seeking appointment of a valuer for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the suit schedule property is rejected.

5. Per contra, Sri.Sumanth M.S., learned counsel for Sri.P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel for respondent No.1, submits that respondent No.1 is the owner of the premises and lease deed was entered in the year 1980 for a period of 35 years and the clauses of the lease deed indicate that petitioner was required to pay a meagre rent as he was required to develop the property, make use of the same and hand over the same without claiming any right over the same. Hence, considering the same, they have assessed the rent paid to the premises and paid the Court fee, which has been rightly considered by the trial Court in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, the question of interfering with the said order would not arise. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petitions.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.

7. The respondent No.1 has filed a suit in O.S.No.322/2016 against the petitioner and other respondents for the relief of judgment and decree of ejectment from the suit schedule property and further damages of Rs.7,50,000/-. The petitioner has filed a detailed written statement, wherein at paragraph No.5, it is averred that the petitioner has constructed commercial building / complex in the suit schedule property at their own costs and expenses and now the respondent No.1-plaintiff is seeking to take back the possession of the same; hence, respondent No.1-plaintif