Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL COURT AT GR.BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3820 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.1368 OF 2019
M/s. Harilal Desar Rana Clothing
Company LLP ..Plaintiff
V/s
Mrs.Kalyani Satish Jaiswal & Anr ..Defendants
Plaintiff in person
Ld. advocate Chirag Gandhi for the defendant
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI M.SALMAN AZMI
DATE: 16/11/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. This notice of motion is tendered by the defendants
interalia for holding the inquiry as to the valuation of
the suit premises under the section of 8 to 10 of
Maharashtra Court Fees Act, (hereinafter referred to
as the Act) and further to appoint an expert with
powers u/s. 10 of the Act to inquire about valuation
of the suit premises.
2. Heard.
3. Ld. Counsel for the defendants submitted that one
Anil Krishna Patil has availed loan on the premises
which is situated exactly below the suit premises and
2
-- 1 of 6 --
2
having less area. On perusal of the report it appears
that the fair market rate is Rs.12,000/ per sq. feet,
whereas the suit premises is 2100 sq. feets which is if
then calculated amount to Rs. 2.52 crores.
4. Ld. Counsel for the defendant further pointed out
that in 2016 for availing loan in respect of suit
premises and other premises which are owned by
the defendants in the area where the suit premises is
situated and pursuant to the said valuation carried
out and fair market rate was Rs.22,000/ to
Rs.26,000/ per sq. feet. If the same is considered the
amount comes to Rs.4.62 crores as per the valuation
report dated 27/04/2016. The defendant submitted
that there is substantial growth since the year 2015
2016 and there is steep hike in the rate in the year
20182019 which is Rs.98900/ per sq. meter which
is if calculated in respect of the suit premises equal to
195.06 x 98.900= 1,92,91,434/ which is over and
above the jurisdiction of this Court. He would submit
that therefore the expert is required to be appointed
and to get the exact market value of the suit
premises.
5. The plaintiff has filed reply to the said notice of
motion. The plaintiff submitted that defendant made
similar application vide Notice of Motion No.
2700/2019 which came to be dismissed by this Court
3
-- 2 of 6 --
3
in which the issue of undervaluation of the suit
premises was taken. He would submit that plaintiff
has properly valued the suit claim as per law. The
defendant have resorted to filing notice of motions
and appeal against order, one after the other, in
order to thwart the proceedings in the above suit.
6. On perusal of sec.8 of the Act, it is apparent that if
the Court is of the opinion that the subject matter of
any suit has been wrongly valued or if an application
is made to the Court for the revision of any valuation
made, the court may revise the valuation and
determine the correct valuation and may hold such
inquiry as it thinks fit for such purpose. Sec.9 of the
Actcontemplates for investigation and ascertaining
proper valuation and Sec.10 of the Act contemplates
the power of person making inquiry u/s.8 and 9 of
the Act.
7. Earlier the defendants have filed notice of motion
no.2700/2019 in it also they have raised the similar
ground and had filed similar valuation reports in
order to assert their submissions. At the time of
argument, the issue of inquiry u/s. 8 of the Act was
also raised. This Court has considered all the
arguments canvassed by the defendants and also
considered the two valuation reports filed by the
defendants and has passed the order holding that the
4
-- 3 of 6 --
4
plaintiff has properly valued the suit claim as per
sec.6(v) of the Act. This Court placed reliance upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the
case of Prem Ratan Vohra Vs. Lalitkumar Dayalji
Kakhani AIR 1988 Bombay 264, wherein it is held
that “The basis for calculating the market value of
the property should be the compensation charged
and not the rent of the premises in question. It is
the net income which accrues to the licensor
calculated in the manner stated herein above
which should be taken as its unit value and its
market value should be arrived at by multiplying
it by 12 1/2 years purchase or by 150 months
value.”
8. This Court further held that the computation of the
market value of the suit premises by the plaintiff is
not foreign to the system of valuation. The
foundation of the computation of the market value
on the basis of the net income of the property which
is approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the
above cited judgement of Prem Ratan. The plaintiff
appears to have computed the market value of the
suit premises on the basis of the net income of the
premises. The defendants have carried this order
before the Hon'ble High Court. It is informed that
the said Writ Petition was subsequently withdrawn
5
-- 4 of 6 --
5
by the defendants. Thus, when the Court has arrived
at a findings that the plaintiff has appropriately
computed the market value of the suit premises, then
it does not lie in the mouth of the defendants to
again pray for inquiry u/s. 8 to 10 of the Act for
valuation of the suit premises. The notice of motion
is devoid of merits and substance. Once the Court
has passed detailed reasoned order in the notice of
motion no.2700 of 2019 and the same was assailed
and Writ Petition was withdrawn, in this
circumstances, the present notice of motion is
nothing but abuse of process of law and is not
required to be considered. Hence, it is expedient to
pass following order:
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 3820/2019 is rejected with
costs of Rs.2,000/ to be paid to the plaintiff by
defendants.
2. Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly.
16/11/2019 M.SALMAN AZMI
CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR.MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 16/11/2019
Transcribed on : 23/11/2019
Signed on : 26/11/2019
6
-- 5 of 6 --
6
'CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
26/11/19 at 5.03 pm.
MRS.T.C.KAMBLE
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI M.S.AZMI, CR NO.1
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order
16/11/2019
Judgment and order signed by P.O. 26/11/2019
Judgment/order uploaded on 26/11/2019
-- 6 of 6 --