S. K. MAHAJAN, J. (ORAL)

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF filed this suit for possession and recovery of mesne profit anddamages on the allegations that commencing from 1/04/1994 the premisescomprising of shop No. 3 left wing, ground floor of property No. 10/60-P, Kirtinagar Industrial Area, New Delhi, measuring 750 sq. ft. , was let to the defendanton a rent of Rs. 4,080. 00 p. m. The premises was let for a period of two years w. e. f. 1/04/1994 and on the expiry of the lease when the tenant did not vacate thesame, the plaintiff served three notices dated 6/04/1996: 16th April, 1996 and25 25/09/1996 terminating the tenancy of the premises, though, accordingto the plaintiff, on the expiry of the lease on 31/03/1996 no notice wasrequired to be served for termination of lease. After the termination of lease, theplaintiff filed this suit for possession as well as for damages/mesne profits from 1/04/1996 to 31/12/1996 at the rate of Rs. 12. 000. 00 per month. In theplaint, the plaintiff besides claiming a sum of Rs. 1,08,000. 00 as the mesne profitshas also claimed possession. In paragraph 8 of the plaint while valuing the suit forpurposes of Court fee and jurisdiction, the plaintiff has stated as under :-

"that the market value of the premises is Rs. 5,25,000. 00 (Rupees five lakhs twentyfive thousand only) which is the valuation for the purposes of court fee andjurisdiction for the purposes of possession and Damages/mesne Profits is Rs. 1,08,000. 00 (Rupees one lakh eight thousand only) on which appropriate court feehas been paid. The plaintiff has also paid additional Court fee of Rs. 10. 00 formesnes profits/damages. "

( 2 ) THE value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction insofar as the relief ofpossession is concerned has been valued at Rs. 5,25,000. 00 on the ground that thatis the market value of the property. After summons in the suit were served uponthe defendants, written statement was filed and one of the objections taken in thewritten statement was that the suit has not been properly valued for purposes ofcourt fee and jurisdiction.

( 3 ) ON 7/01/1999 the Court observed that under Section 7 (xi) (cc) of thecourt Fees Act in a suit for recovery of possession of an immovable property froma tenant whose tenancy has been terminated, the amount of Court fee payable isone year s rent. The valuation of the suit for purposes of Court fee and jurisdictionfixed at Rs. 5,25,000. 00 appeared to the Court to be arbitrary. That is howarguments of learned counsel for the parties have been heard on the question as towhether the suit has been properly valued for purposes of Court fee andjurisdiction.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff submits that under Section 7 (xi) (cc) of thecourt Fees Act, it is only in the case of a tenant holding over that the Court fee ispayable on the amount of annual rent of the property. He contends that in case thedefendant is not a tenant holding over, the suit has to be valued on the market priceof the property as the defendant on the termination of the tenancy is a trespassertherein. He also relies upon Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act in supportof his contention that a tenant holding over is the tenant from whom the rent hasbeen accepted by the landlord after termination of the lease. Section 116 of thetransfer of Property Act is in the following terms:-

"116. Effect of holding over:- If a lessee or under-lessee of property remains inpossession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee, andthe lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under-lessee,or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession to lease is, in the absence ofan agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month,according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as specified in Section 106. "

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff has also relied upon the judgments reportedas Champat Vs. Balakdas, 1925 Nagpur 131 and Gobinda Ram Agarwala Vs. Dulu Pada D

Click Here to Read the rest of this document