( 1. ) PLAINTIFF/respondent has instituted a suit for eviction against the defendant/petitioner on the grounds under section 12 (l) (a) and (f) of the m. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. It has been pleaded that the defendant/ petitioner obtained the suit premises vide registered lease deed dated 29-8-1997 for a period of Five years on rent w. e. f. 1-9-1997, which was fixed at Rs. 1,000/-per month for a period of first two and half years and for remaining two and half years, it was settled at Rs. 1200/- per month. It is further pleaded that according to the lease deed, the defendant/petitioner was required to handover back the possession of the suit premises on 31-8-2002. In case of non-delivery of vacant possession, the defendant-tenant was liable to pay Rs. 200/- per day as mesne profit. The plaint has been valued at Rs. 1,28,500/- in the following manner :-

( 2. ) THE defendant/petitioner submitted his written statement raising thereby various pleas. Inter-alia, it has been stated in the written statement that the defendant was not inducted in the suit premises vide rent note (lease deed) dated 29-8-1997. This apart, it has been further stated that clause pertaining to payment of Rs. 200/- per day as mesne profit is absolutely illegal and is not enforceable.

( 3. ) THEREAFTER, the defendant/petitioner submitted an application under order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating thereby that the plaintiff has grossly over-valued the suit. The Court of Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction because the suit ought to have been filed in the Court of Civil Judge. Moreover, the defendant/petitioner would also lose his right of appeal to the court of District Judge.

( 4. ) LEARNED trial Judge dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide impugned order Annx. P/8 dated 6-10-2005. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been preferred.

( 5. ) SHRI R. P. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the plaintiff/landlord is not entitled to recover any amount in excess of the standard rent and the alleged agreement containing a stipulation about payment of mesne profit @ Rs. 200/- per day, is void. Relying upon section 5 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. He further referred to section 43 of the Act which makes a landlord liable if he receives rent in excess of the standard rent. Accordingly, it is submitted by him that the suit could not have been valued on the basis of mesne profit at the alleged rate and the plaint ought to have been rejected. He placed reliance for this purpose on the Supreme Court decision in case of Smt. Chander Kali Bail and others vs. Jagdish Singh Thakur, 1978 MPLJ (SC) 96 = AIR 1977 SC 2262. Shri Agrawal, learned Senior counsel further placed reliance on the case of State of M. P. vs. Navalkishor Mangilal and another, 1990 MPLJ 412. He contended that so long as the statutory tenant continues in possession, notwithstanding landlords legal steps to recover possession of the tenanted premises, he is debarred from claiming any amount as compensation.

( 6. ) PER contra, Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord referred to the Supreme Court decision in case of Shyam charan vs. Sheoji Bhai and another, AIR 1971 SC 2270 to contend that a decree for damages of mesne profit may be awarded at a rate in excess of the rent mutually agreed between the parties. He also referred to this Courts decision in prema Agarwal and others vs. Om Prakash Gautam and another, 2001 (1) MPLJ 547 whereby it has been held that mesne profit may be awarded to the landlord at a rate in excess of the mutually agreed rent.

( 7. ) BY the impugned order, application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed. Shri Agrawal, learned Senior counsel conceded that the suit for eviction is maintainable and the plaint with regard to it is not liable to be rejected. Thus, it may be seen that even according to t