Paramhansanand Shiksha Mandir Ashram vs VII Additional District Judge and Others

D.S. Sinha, J.—Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar - Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Shrikant, learned counsel representing the Respondents No. 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Asserting themselves to be the owner-landlord of the house in dispute and the Petitioner as their tenant therein, the Respondents No. 3, 4,5, and 6, hereinafter called the Respondents-II set, instituted in the Court of judge Small Causes, Deoria Suit No. 29 of 1978, for ejectment of-the Petitioner from the disputed house. It appears, the Petitioner pleaded that its status in the disputed house was not that of a tenant; that the Respondents H set were not the owner landlord of the house in question; and that the Court of Judge Small Causes lacked jurisdiction to try the suit as it involved the determination of question of title to the house in dispute.

The plea of the Petitioner with regard to jurisdiction was upheld and an order directing return of the plaint, u/s 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, was passed.

Consequent upon the said order for return of the plaint, the Respondents -II set presented the plaint- in the Court of Munsif, Deoria, which was registered as Suit No. 1265 of 1981. Before the Munsif; the Petitioner raised a plea with regard to inadequacy of the valuation of the suit and insufficiency of Court fees paid by the Respondents-II, set.

By means of his judgment and order dated 23rd April, 1985 the learned Munsif held that the suit was adequately valued, and that the Court fees paid thereon was sufficient. The Petitioner felt aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsif. It therefore filed a civil revision questioning the legality of the order of the learned Munsif which was decided by the learned VII Add!. District and Sessions Judge, Deoria, who by means of his judgment and order dated 30th October, 1985 dismissed the revision and upheld the order of the learned Munsif.

Discontented Petitioner has filed� this petition questioning the two orders dated 23rd April, 1985 and 30th October, 1985, passed by the Munsif and the learned VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deoria.

The Court below have taken the view that the nature of the suit is that of a suit between the landlord and tenant for recovery of immovable property from the tenant, covered by Section 7(xi)(cc) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, hereinafter called the Act.

From the perusal of the copy of the plaint, which is available before this Court as Annexure ''? to the petition, it is absolutely clear that the suit is one for recovery of immovable property from the Petitioner who is alleged to be tenant. The question of title to the house in dispute raised by the Petitioner is only incidental. The success of the suit of the Respondents-II set for recovery of the property in suit will, obviously, depend upon proof of the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the Petitioner, (f they fait to establish that relationship, the suit will fail. For the purpose of determination of question as to whether the Respondents-II set are entitled to the decree prayed for in the suit the question of their title to the property in dispute is not directly and substantially involved, and incidental enquiry thereof will not change the nature of the suit which was and continues to be a suit between the landlord and tenant for recovery of the disputed immovable property notwithstanding the order of the Judge Small Causes directing return of the plaint.

The exercise of finding out the valuation of the property in dispute undertaken by the trial Court was misconceived. In a suit instituted by the landlord for recovery of Immovable property from the tenant the quantum of valuation of the immovable property is irrelevant. The valuation of a suit for recovery of Immovable property founded on relationship of landlord and tenant, for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and payment of Court fees, has to be assessed on the basis of annual rent of the Immovable property as envisaged in Section 7(xi)(cc) of the Act.

In the instant case the suit being one by the landlord for recovery of the Immovable property from the tenant, based on the alleged relationship of landlord and tenant, and, the monthly rent being Rs 100/- it has been correctly valued at Rs. 1200/-for the purpose of determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, and the Court fees paid thereon has rightly been held to be sufficient. Further, it has been appropriately pointed out by the courts below that the order of the Judge Small Causes, Deoria passed in Suit No. 29 of 1978, directing the return of the plaint does not change the nature of the suit No. 1265, of 1981, and will also not have the effect of amending the plaint of the suit.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court is clearly of the opinion fiat the impugned orders and judgments are sound in law and should not be intermeddled with by it in exercise of its special and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs. 2000/- and to be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondents-II set within a period of three months, to be computed from today. In the (sic) of failure to pay costs and directed herein the Petitioner shall be liable to have its defence struck out and to be placed in the same position as if it has not defended.

The interim order dated 20th November, 1985 staying further proceedings in Suit'' No. 1265 of 1981, Ashok! Kumar and others v. Chandra Deo Sharan and others, shall stand discharged. In view of the fact that the suit is more than a decade old the trial Court is directed to expedite its disposal.