Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1027 (MP)

Kusuma Rathore v. Sharad Sharma

2012-10-09

SUJOY PAUL

body2012
ORDER 1. The petitioner aggrieved by order dated 10.1.2011 has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The grievance of the petitioner/defendant is that in the civil suit for eviction and arrears of rent, the plaintiff/respondent has overvalued the suit, which amounts to abuse of process of law and, therefore, Court below should have allowed his application and should have returned the plaint. 2. Shri D.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the application, Annexure P-4, is filed with a prayer to return the plaint for the reason stated above. However, he fairly submits that it is erroneously captioned as application under order 7 rule 11 of CPC, whereas it should be treated as an application under order 7 rule 10 of CPC. By relying certain judgments, he criticized the order of the court below. 3. Per Contra, Shri Vivek Jain, Advocate for the respondent/plaintiff supported the order passed by the Court below. 4. The allegation in the plaint is that the petitioner/defendant has not paid rent w.e.f. 1.1.1997 and amount of Rs. 91,650/- is due as rent for last 13 years. The valuation of suit was based on an amount of Rs. 1,02,700/-. The court fees is also paid by the plaintiff on that basis. Section 12(1)(a) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, provides that only 3 years rent is legally recoverable. On the basis of aforesaid, it is stated that respondent/plaintiff has erroneously claimed rent for 13 years and quantified and paid the court fees on that basis which is bad in law. The Court below has rejected the application on the ground that even if under section 13(1)(a) of the said Act, the plaintiff may be entitled to get rent for only 3 years but nothing prevents him to value the suit on the basis of entire rent. In other words, the Court below has given a finding that nothings prevents the plaintiff to assess the valuation of the suit on the basis of entire unpaid rent although relief may be restricted to the extent it is permissible (3 years) under the law. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, as per section 15 of the CPC every suit has to be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, as per section 15 of the CPC every suit has to be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it. The hierarchy of the Courts are made so that the aggrieved party can avail the remedy of appeal, etc. The valuation, in my view, has a direct nexus with the relief permissible in law. If law permits that rent can be recovered only for last 3 years, there will be absolutely no justification in valuing the suit on the basis of alleged unpaid rent of 13 years. 6. In (1987) 3 SCC 705 (Nandita Boss vs. Ratanlal Nahata), the apex Court held that grossly overvalued suit can be returned by the Court to present it before the Court of competent jurisdiction. It is necessary to do so to prevent the abuse of process of law. In 2006(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 102 = 2005 (4) MPLJ 24 (Arun Kumar Vs. Krishna Gopal Sharma), this Court held that in a suit for eviction, the tenant is not obliged to deposit the time barred rent under section 13(1) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. By considering the full Bench judgment reported in 1978 JLJ 6 = 1978 MPLJ 405 (Mankunwarbai and others Vs. Sunderlal Rambharosa Jain), this Court opined that the tenant cannot be directed to deposit rent beyond the period of 3 years. 7. The hierarchy of Courts and the tier system provides avenues and forums to the litigant to assail the order of the Court below. Section 15 of CPC is made with a view to ensure that the first litigation is instituted before the Court of competent jurisdiction as a Court of first instance. As analyzed above, the permissible relief under a provision of law has a direct nexus with the valuation of a particular suit and, therefore, a litigant cannot be permitted to evaluate it on the basis of his whims and fancies. If this is permitted, it will defeat the very purpose of insertions of section 15 in the statute book. This will also deprive the litigant from a statutory right of appeal before appropriate appellate Court. Such a course, if permitted, will short-circuit the tier system, which can never be the intention of law makers. 8. If this is permitted, it will defeat the very purpose of insertions of section 15 in the statute book. This will also deprive the litigant from a statutory right of appeal before appropriate appellate Court. Such a course, if permitted, will short-circuit the tier system, which can never be the intention of law makers. 8. In the present case, admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff has valued the suit on the basis entire unpaid rent of 13 years, whereas law permits the claim only upto 3 years. 9. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, the conclusion arrived at by the Court below leads to absurdity and against the basic intention of the law on the subject. The Court below has erred in holding that nothing prevents the respondent/plaintiff to value the suit on the basis of entire unpaid rent although he may not be entitled to get rent beyond 3 years. The Court below has failed to examine the impact of such an order. This order will be against the fundamental principle flowing from section 15 of the CPC. Thus, I am unable to hold that the Court below has rightly rejected the application (Annexure P-4). The Court below ought to have allowed that application in view of aforesaid legal position. 10. Consequently, the order dated 10.1.2011, to the extent application dated 25.11.2010 (Annexure P-4) is rejected, is set aside. Petition is allowed. The Court below is directed to return the plaint by passing appropriate orders with a liberty to him to present it before a Court of competent jurisdiction. No costs.