The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff must comply with the procedural requirements and proper valuation of the suit as per the relevant legal provisions.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. The sole point involved in this revision petition is whether the refusal of prayer to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 21-A/99 is justified.

2. A brief reference to the factual aspects as stated by the parties would suffice.

3. The non-applicant No. 3, Saddruddin Farista, instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration that the lease hold rights in respect of the suit plot are valid and subsist and the letters dated 2-4-99 and 11-6-99 issued by the Defendant No. 1, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, are without any legal authority and sanction, and further for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from invalidating, interfering with or disturbing the lease hold interest of the plaintiff in respect of the suit plot without due process of law. It is setforth in the plaint that the defendant No. 1 owns the plot No. 11/2 in Block No. 94 admeasuring an area of 1250 sq. ft. situate at Old Bus Stand, G.E. Road, Raipur and this parcel of land was let out to one Rajab AH at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. After the death of said Rajab Ali the said land was given on lease to the plaintiff at the same rate of rent under an agreement dated 15-6-79. It is also putforth in the plaint that on 16-2-71 the defendant No. 1 had granted permission in writing to the predecessor in title, Rajab Ali, to let out the said plot on a sub lease, and accordingly, Rajab Ali created sub lease in favour of M/s Caltex (India) Limited. After the sub lease was granted in favour of M/s Caltex (India) Limited, the said company had put the defendant No. 2 in possession of the said land to run a petrol pump over there. It is also pleaded that by virtue of the provision as contained in Sections 7 and 9 of the Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. & of the undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Ltd. Act, 1977 read with Notification issued by Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Chemicals, New Delhi, in the year 1977 the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation came into existence and acquired all the rights of the sub-lessee created by Rajab Ali Farista. According to the plaintiff he has not contravened any condition of the lease granted to him and the lessor has regularly been accepting the rent from the plaintiff. It is also putforth that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation is a sub tenant of the plaintiff and there has been recognition as such. It is averred that on 12-4-99 the plaintiff received a registered letter dated 2-4-99 issued by the defendant No. 1, the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, alleging that the plaintiff instead of using the suit plot for his own business has sub-leased to the defendant No. 2 resulting in the breach of the lease dated 15-6-79 granted to him by the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff was asked to show cause why the lease should not be revoked. The plaintiff sent a written reply on 16-4-99 to the defendant No. 1 by registered post with acknowledgment due wherein he claimed to be the sub-lessee in respect of the suit plot. After making many an averment the plaintiff eventually, made the prayers as have already been indicated earlier. After the suit was admitted, the defendant, Baldev Singh Bhatia, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending, inter alia, that the suit against the Municipal Corporation is not maintainable without service of notice as required under Section 401 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and further that the plaintiff has valued the suit differently for jurisdiction and court-fees which is not permissible under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act and, therefore, the plaint should be rejected.

4. A reply was filed by the plaintiff stating therein that the plaintiff has already served a notice under Section 401 of the Municipal Corporation Act, and theref