The main legal principle established is that when a special provision is available under the statute for valuing a suit, it should take precedence over the general provision, and court fees should be paid in accordance with the special provision.

ORDER :

This application has been filed praying to decide the preliminary issues as to whether the suit is overvalued as it has got to be valued under Section 43(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and, if the suit has been overvalued, whether the same has to be transferred to the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai to try the same on merits.

2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid unnecessary confusion or ambiguity in the discussion, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the civil suit.

3. The plaintiff is the proprietor of Sri Vari Motors. The suit has been filed for restoration of possession of the schedule mentioned premises to the plaintiff; permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and any other persons claiming under or through them from renting or leasing or encumbering the schedule mentioned property; granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, or any other persons claiming under or through them from continuing in possession of the schedule mentioned property and consequently, put the plaintiff in possession of the schedule mentioned property; granting mandatory injunction directing the defendants or their men, or agents to handover all the original R.C. Books, Documents, Spares and all other materials belonging to the plaintiff that are kept in the schedule mentioned premises; and for costs of the suit.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was a tenant under the defendants from 2012 in respect of the suit schedule mentioned commercial building, measuring an extent of 4100 square feet on Ground Floor and 2700 square feet on First Floor situated at D.No.223, T.H.Road, New Washermenpet, Chennai 600081. There was common open passage measuring 700 square feet available for the use of all the tenants including the plaintiff, owners and co-occupants. There was a rental agreement dated 01.04.2017 was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants for a period of five years commencing from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2022. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs.1,35,000/- per month and the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as security deposit to the defendants. Until the lock-down was announced in March, 2020 due to Covid-19 pandemic, the plaintiff was carrying on his business peacefully in the schedule mentioned premises. While so, in March, 2020, the schedule mentioned premises was blocked with metal sheets for the work undertaken for Chennai Metro Rail Limited and due to lock-down the plaintiff was unable to carry on his business in the suit schedule premises.

5. While so, on 13.04.2021, the defendants unlawfully broke open the shutter lock of the showroom and illegally occupied and took over possession of the suit schedule premises by unlawful means. Hence, the plaintiff had no option but to file the suit for restoration of possession and for other reliefs.

6. The defendants denied the averment in the plaint that the plaintiff was illegally dispossessed. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff himself had voluntarily surrendered the possession of the rented-out premises. It is the further case of the defendants the lease period was for three years and the agreement had been altered by the plaintiff. The material alterations made in the agreement are

i) at page 4, para 1, the word “three” has been altered into “five”;

(ii) at the same page same para, “2020” has been altered into 2022;

(iii) the word “security deposit cash of Rs.50,000/- has been altered into Rs.25,00,000/-” ;

(iv) at page 5, 4th line “Rs.10,50,000/- has been altered into Rs.25,00,000/-;

(v) at page 5, para 1, “31.03.2010” (which was a mistake originally crept in) has been altered into 31.03.2022;

(vi) at the same para “Rs.10,50,000/-” has been altered into Rs.25,00,000/-;

(vii) 4th para at page 5 has been completely left out; and in many places alterations has been done in the layout of letter from pages 3 to 8.

The defendants, there