PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Radhakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Ananthakrishnan – Respondent
What is the proper court fee payable in a suit for recovery of possession instituted against the alleged tenants pursuant to finding by the Rent Control Court under the Proviso to Section 11 (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act that the denial of the landlord's title by the alleged tenants is bona fide is the question which arises in this writ petition under Article 227.
2. Ext.P-1 is copy of the plaint filed by the petitioners and one of the facts mentioned as constituting cause of action for the suit is the dismissal of rent control petition, which had been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants on finding that the defendants' denial of the plaintiffs' title is bona fide. The prayer in the suit is to allow the plaintiffs to recover the suit schedule building, holding that the grounds envisaged by Section 11(2)(b) and Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act are established. The above prayer has been valued under Section 43(2) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. It was contended by the defendants inter alia that the valuation of the suit is improper and the court fee paid is insufficient. They reiterated their
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.