Devinder Gupta, ACJ

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff/appellant is directed against the order dated 17th Novcmhcr, 1998 of a learned Single Judge by which the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction.

SUIT was filed, inter-alia, alleging that shop No. IX/222, Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi was let out to Sikandar Lal Arora, husband- of the plaintiff, by Rajesh Bhatt, predecessor-in- interest of the defendants sometime in 1958 on a monthly rental of Rs. 251- On account of Sikandar Lal Arora having suffered a paralytic stroke and his consequent indisposition the tenancy of said shop was transferred in the name of the plaintiff w. e. f. 5th December, 1997 at a monthly rental of Rs. 200. 00 by said Rajesh Bhatt. At the time of transfer of tenancy, plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 4,800. 00 to R. ajesh Bhatt towards advance rent covering a period of two years from 5th December, 1997 to 4th November, 1999. After the death of Rajesh Bhatt, the plaintiff attorned, to the defendants as his legal heirs. It is stated that the defendants are carrying illegal construction in the back portion of the tenanted shop and want to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff by demolishing the back wall of the shop. Decree of permanent injunction is sought restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and employees etc. from causing any damage to the tenanted shop and also from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever.

PARA of the plaint dealing with the valuation of the suit and payment of court fee read :-

"that the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs. 5,05,000. 00 on which appropriate court fee in accordance with law has been paid.

( 2 ) IN terms of the order under appeal, the plaint was ordered to be returned for being presented before. a Court of competent jurisdiction by the Single Judge observing :-

"according to the plaintiff, the suit premises were let out to her at a monthly rent of Rs. 200. 00 and so the plaintiff ought to have valued her claim at the amount of the annual rent of the suit premises. There is no rationale basis for valuation of the plaint at Rs. 5,05,000. 00. Thus, in my opinion, the valuation put up by the plaintiff is arbitrary and unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively over valued. "

( 3 ) RELYING on the decisions in S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar Vs. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245 and Smt. Sheila Devi and Ors. Vs. Sh. Kishan Lal Kalra and Ors. , 1974 (II) ILR (Delhi) 491 (FB), submission advanced by Sh. Ajit Dayal appearing for the appellant was that Section 7 (iv) (d) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 gives a right to the plaintiff to place any valuation that he/she likes in a suit of this nature and the Court has no power to interfere with the plaintiff s valuation.

CONSTITUTION Bench of Supreme Court in Sathappa Chettiar s (supra) has dealt with the question of the plaintiffs exercise of option in valuing suit under clause (d) of Section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act. In para 15 of the report it was held :-

"what would be the value for the purpose of jurisdiction in such suits is another question which often arises for decision. This question has to be decided by reading Sec. 7 (iv) of the Act alongwith Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. This latter Section provides that, where in any suits other than those REFERRED TO in Court-fees Act, Section 7, paras 5, 6 and 9 and para 10, Clause (d), court fees are payable ad valorem under the Act, the value determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. In other words, so far as suits falling under Sec. 7, sub-Sec. (iv) of the Act are concerned, Sec. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act provides that the value as determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. There can be little doubt that the effe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document