High Court of Delhi
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
Pravesh Miglani – Appellant
Versus
Punam Anand Kumar – Respondent
CM(M) No. 144 of 2015 & CM No. 3110 of 2015 (Stay)
Decided On : 18-03-2015
Ejectment - Valuation of Relief of Injunction - Section 15 of CPC
Fact of the Case:
The Respondent filed a suit for ejectment, recovery of money, use and occupation charges, and interest against the Petitioner. The dispute arose from the termination of tenancy and failure to vacate the premises.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be decided as a preliminary issue as it has bearing on the claim of mesne profit and damages and thus evidence is required to be led by the parties.
Issues: The main issue was the valuation of the relief of injunction and whether the Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction over the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the valuation for the relief of injunction should not be arbitrary or fanciful. It also highlighted that the issue of court fees and pecuniary jurisdiction being a mixed question of fact and law cannot be decided as a preliminary issue.
Final Decision: The petition and application were dismissed.
1. The Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment, recovery of money of Rs.36,767/-, use and occupation charges/mesne profit and interest against the Petitioner/defendant. In the plaint it was pleaded that late Mrs. Veena Paintal had let out the premises to the Petitioner/Defendant for residential purposes at monthly rent of Rs.55,00/- vide Lease Deed dated 29th June, 2000 for a period of 11 months which expired on 31st May, 2001 and thereafter there was no renewal of the Lease Deed though the rent was being paid from month to month basis. Mrs. Veena Paintal terminated the tenancy of the Petitioner/Defendant in respect of the said premises by virtue of the legal notice dated 10th November, 2001 however, the Petitioner failed to vacate the premises. Mrs. Veena Paintal filed a suit for ejectment against the Petitioner/Defendant which was decided in favour of Mrs. Veena Paintal vide judgment dated 19th September, 2009. In an appeal filed by the Petitioner the said judgment of the learned Civil Judge was set aside and the suit was dismissed on the ground that the notice of termination of tenancy dated 10th November, 2001 could not be proved. Mrs. Veena Paintal again issued a legal notice dated 24th February, 2010 however, despite the said notice the Petitioner/Defendant failed to vacate the premises. Before Mrs. Veena Paintal could initiate proceedings she passed away on 4th April, 2010. In terms of the registered Will dated 6th October, 2006 of Mrs. Veena Paintal, the Plaintiff/Respondent herein became the sole and exclusive owner of the premises and thus filed the suit. To avoid any complication before filing the suit, the Respondent/Plaintiff issued a fresh legal notice dated 6th May, 2010 to the Petitioner/Defendant who still failed to vacate the premises.
2. In the suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff, following prayers were made:
“(a) Pass a Decree of Ejectment of defendant from the said Premises, that is portion of basement area measuring 600 (six hundred) square feet, in the rear building of property bearing No.71, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057, as more particularly shown as shaded and delineated in Red in the site plan annexed hereto as Annexure ‘A’.
(b) Pass a Decree of Rs.36,767/- (Rupees Thirty Six Thousand Seven Hundreds Sixty Seven only) from September 2009 to May 26, 2010 @ Rs.5,500/- (Rupees Five Thousand Five Hundred only) per month along with interest @18% (eighteen percent) per annum from the due date till realization of the entire amount;
(c) Pass a Decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for payment of use and occupation charges of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) by defendant to the plaintiff in respect of the said Premises from May 27, 2010 upto May 31, 2010, along with the interest @ 8% (eighteen percent) per annum;
(d) Pass a Decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant of damages/mesne profits from June 1, 2010 @ Rs.100/- (Rupees One Hundred only) per sq. ft. per month, which works out to @ Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) per month, or at such higher rate/amount as may be determined with reference to the market rent in respect of the said premises prevailing from time to time, till the date the defendant hands over vacant peaceful physical possession of the said premises to the plaintiff.
(e) Grant Interest @ 18% (eighteen percent) per annum, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, w.e.f May 27, 2010, pendent elite and future on the amount of damages/mesne profit determined by the Hon’ble Court, as payable by the defendant from the respective due dates upto payment in full;
(f) Pass a Decree of Perpetual Injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant restraining the Defendant and his agents, officers and employees from in any manner transferring, alienating, parting with possession of and/or otherwise creating third party rights/interest in respect of the said Premises or any part thereof;
(g) Grant
Sujir Keshav Nayak vs. Sujir Ganesh Nayak
Dr. Om Prakash Rawal vs. Mr. Justice Amrit Lal Bahri
Suryapal Singh vs. Sudha Tomar
Shakuntala Rani vs. Rajesh Bhatt (Deceased) through LRs.
Abdul Hamid Shamsi v. Abdul Majid and Ors.
Mennakshi Sundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar
Tara Devi v. Sri. Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj
Ramesh B. Desai & Ors. Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 638
Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon [(1964) 4 SCR 409 : AIR 1964 SC 497]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.