W. P. No. 16296 of 2005. Case: Vinod Kumar Tamrakar Vs Mukesh Kumar Agrawal. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | W. P. No. 16296 of 2005 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R.P. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Praveen Dave, Advs.and For Respondents: Vivek Rusia,Adv. |
| Judges | Abhay M. Naik, J. |
| Issue | Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 - Sections 12(1), 43, 5 |
| Citation | 2008 (1) MPLJ 213 |
| Judgement Date | April 10, 2007 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Order:
Abhay M. Naik, J., (Jabalpur Bench)
Plaintiff/Respondent has instituted a suit for eviction against the Defendant/Petitioner on the grounds under Section 12(1)(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:
| (i) | For eviction on the basis of yearly rent | Rs. 14,400/- |
| (ii) | Mesne profit according to para 8 | Rs. 1,13,600/- |
| (iii) | Notice charges | Rs. 500/- |
| Total | Rs. 1,28,500/- |
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 manse profit is absolutely illegal and is not enforceable.
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.
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.
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 manse profit @ Rs. 200/- per day, is void. Relying upon Section 5 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. He further...
To continue reading
Request your trial