JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J. (Oral)

Petition herein is for setting aside impugned order dated 05.01.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, whereby application filed by defendant/petitioner herein, under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, for rejection of plaint was dismissed.

2. Succinct facts first as pleaded in the instant petition.

2.1 Plaintiff/respondents filed the suit for possession by way of ejectment of petitioner herein from the demised premises allegedly let out by them on a monthly rent of Rs.28,000/- per month vide registered agreement for a period of 24 months w.e.f. 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2018. Besides it, through a hire agreement, an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month was charged for using the fixtures and fittings and further plaintiff /respondents also claimed that after termination of the tenancy, the possession of defendant/petitioner qua the premises in question is illegal and unauthorized therefore, he became liable to make the payment of Rs.3,000/- per day on account of damages.

2.2 Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement (Annexure P-2) taking the preliminary objections regarding locus standi, jurisdiction, maintainability etc.

2.3. On merits, the averments raised by plaintiff/respondents herein were controverted by way of denial seeking dismissal of the suit with costs.

2.4. Petitioner/defendant also filed an application (Annexure P-3) under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground that Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit as the disputed property is situated within the urban area/municipal limit and only Rent Controller has the jurisdiction. Apart from this, the objection of suit being undervalued was raised on account of the fact that the relief of recovery of possession was being sought and the market value of the suit land is more than Rs.5,000/- per square yards and the area of the suit land is 1387 square feet, its value comes to Rs.69,35,000/- and Court fee of Rs.2,03,300/- was required to be affixed on the plaint.

2.5 Upon notice of the application, reply was filed stating that the application is just a delay tactics and sought dismissal of the application.

2.6. Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dismissed the application. Hence, the revision petition.

3. Impugned order dated 05.01.2019 passed by learned trial Court, is premised, inter alia, on the following reasoning:-

"6. Arguments have been advanced and duly considered. Ld. counsel for Defendant/Applicant Sh. Subhash Grover, Adv. has urged the suit for possession is not maintainable on account of parties being in a Landlord-Tenant relationship and are governed by provisions of Rent Act. Further, deficiency in court fees is urged on account of market value of suit property. Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff/Respondent Sh. O.P. Lohiya, Adv. has urged that question of deficient Court fees cannot be made a ground for rejection of plaint, whereas the quantum of liquidated damages claimed is a matter, yet to be adjudged in course of trial.

7. As such, considering that Plaintiff has affixed the court fees upon the value of sale deed by which suit property was purchased by her, there does not appear any ground for rejection of plaint. The objection of lack of jurisdiction as well as question of damages claimed and non-affixation of court fees thereupon, can very well be considered upon merits, upon which, specific issue shall be framed at relevant stage.

8. Application at hand is disposed off as disallowed, as there is no sufficient ground for adjudicating the present suit in limine and the matter of jurisdiction/court fees can be considered on merits."

4. There is no representation on beha