1. This is an application under Order 14, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., filed on behalf of the defendants. Mr. Shahenshah Hussain, the learned counsel for the defendants/landlord has contended that admittedly the plaintiff was a tenant of the subject property on the monthly rent of Rs.4,000 (rupees four thousand) which makes the annual rental value as Rs.48,000 and that the suit has been filed under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, which is a special provision. He further contended that the suits in regard to the possession of immovable property are to be valued for the purposes of the court-fees and valuation under section 7 (v)(xi)(e) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and- section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, under which the court-fee value and jurisdictional value will be the same and in the present case the court-fee should have been worked out on Rs.48,000 and not on rupees six lacs. His next contention was that as the. High Court has pecuniary jurisdiction of claims of rupees five lacs and above this case being of lower value is not maintainable.
2. He relied on the following cases:---
(1) Rupji Jerag and another v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay. AIR 1953 Bom. 168.
(2) Mohan Lal and others v. Bhuteshwar AIR 1925 All. 142 Mr. Muhammad Sadiq, the learned counsel for the plaintiff admitted that the plaintiff was a tenant of the defendant and that the last lease in respect of the subject property was renewed upto 31-12- 1989. However, he contended that on 4-9-1991 the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed from the said premises. He admitted that the rent being paid by the plaintiff was Rs.4,000 (Rupees four thousand) per month. But according to him the present case will be covered by section 7(v)(a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and not by sub-rule (v)(xi)(e) of section 7 as contended by Mr. Shahenshah Hussain and that court-fee has been rightly valued and case is maintainable in High Court.
3. I have heard both the learned counsel and have considered the case-law relied upon by the parties. The admitted facts are that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the defendant and the plaintiff and the monthly rent was Rs.4,000 making an annual rental value of Rs.48,000 and suit has been filed for possession of the premises.
4. To consider the contentions raised by the learned counsel I will first refer, to section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1877, which is as follows:--- "8 Court-fee value and jurisdictional value to be the same in certain suits.--Wherein suits other than those referred to in the Court Fees Act, 1870, section 7, paragraphs (v),(vi) and (x), paragraph (x), clause (d), court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Court Fees Act, 1870, the value as determinable foil the computation of court-fees and the value for purposes of4urisdictional shall be the same."
5. As such the cases falling under section 7(v)(xi) will be covered under section 8 where for the value as determinable for the computation of court-fee and for jurisdiction will be the same. Now coming to section 7(v)(xi)(e) the same is as follows:--- "7(v) For possession of lands, houses and gardens. In suit for possession of lands, houses and gardens--according to the value of the subject-matter; and such value shall be deemed to be:---
(a) .......................................................................................
(b) .......................................................................................
(c) ........................................................................................
(d) .......................................................................................
(x) between landlord and tenant; in the following suits between landlord and tenant:---
(a) .......................................................................................
(b) .......................................................................................
(c) .......................................................................................
(d) .......................................................................................
(e) to recover the occupancy of immovable property from which a tenant has been illegally ejected by the land1drd, and
(f) ....................................................................................... according to the amount of rent of the (Immovable property) to which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date of presentation of the plaint."
6. As against the above section 7(v)(e) relied upon by Mr. Muhammad Sadiq, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted as under:-- "(e) for houses and gardens:--Where the subject-matter is a house or garden-- according to the market value of the house or garden: The bare reading of this section makes it clear that in cases where the dispute is between landlord and tenant in respect of illegal ejectment from an immovable property the court-fee will be in accordance to the amount of rent of the subject immovable property. It can be seen that the sections are applicable to land, houses and gardens. It is further seen that sub-para. (v) of section 7 which deals with for possession of land, houses and gardens is divided into two while sub--- paras. (v)(a) to (d) deal only with land sub-para. (v)(e) deals with houses and gardens. The real distinction comes only under sub-rule (v)(xi)(e) which precisely pin-points the said subsection to be dealing with between landlord and tenant and to recover the occupancy of premises.
7. According to the counsel, the present premises, which is a shop is to be considered as a house and it was in this context that he relied on the case-law mentioned earlier.
8. It was observed that it is well-established that under the Court Fees Act all suits for possession fall under section 7(v) except those suits which are otherwise dealt with in that section and suits between landlord and tenant of certain kinds referred to in section 7(xi) are taken out of section 7(v) and one of such suits is a suit between landlord and tenant for the recovery of immovable property from a tenant.
9. It was held that "suit is to be valued for the purposes of jurisdiction in the same manner as it is to be valued for the purposes of court-fee and the court---fee payable on a suit of this character is the rent of the immovable property".
10. The cases relied upon by Mr. Muhammad Sadiq are not applicable to the facts of the present case. , If one gives a cursory glance at the sections and subsections mentioned hereinabove it becomes clear that the present suit will be covered by section 7(v)(xi)(e) of the Court Fees Act. This section provides the valuation of the court-fee, for the recovery of possession, to be computed according to the amount of rent of the immovable property, which is the subject matter of the suit. In the present case as already admitted the rent being paid by the plaintiff was Rs.4,000 per month, bringing the annual rental value to Rs.48,000. Section 8 of Suits Valuation Act prescribes that valuation for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction in such cases will be the same. Since the annual rental value of the property is Rs.48,000, the court-fee and jurisdictional value will be according to the same. The amount being below the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court, Which was at the relevant time Rs.1,00,000 and above the suit could not be maintained in this Court.
11. The upshot of the above discussion is that the suit, being for specific performance between the landlord and the tenant for the valuation purposes it is declared to be of the value of Rs.48,000 which being below pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be maintained in the High Court. Since the plaintiff was perusing the matter diligently and suit was filed within limitation period it should be transferred to the appropriate Court having such jurisdiction.