Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: ORDER ..1.. NM NO. 4487/2019
MHCC010122622019
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4487 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 303 OF 2014
Mr. Popatlal Babulalji Sanghvi. …Plaintiff
Versus
Shree Laxmi Vijay Printing Press. … Defendant.
Advocates
R.B. Jain for the plaintiff.
Vaibhav Mehta @ Nitesh Pande for the defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
Sunil T. Soor.
(COURT No.: 2) I
DATED : 26th November 2021.
ORAL ORDER
Heard advocate for both parties on notice of motion moved on
behalf of the defendant for inquiry of valuation of market value of the
suit premises i.e., Room No.3 admeasuring about 266.56 sq. fts. build
up area situated on the ground floor of Madhoram Building, Kalbadevi
Road, Mumbai – 400 002 under section 8 r/w section 9 of the
Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959.
-- 1 of 6 --
ORDER ..2.. NM NO. 4487/2019
2. Plaintiff strongly opposed the notice of motion by filing reply.
Perused the Notice of Motion, reply of the plaintiff and pleadings of the
parties.
3. Relevant facts of the case for decision of present notice of
motion are that one Shri. N.D. Japee (deceased) was tenant of the suit
premises. Plaintiff acquired the Madhoram Building by Deed of
Conveyance dated 28.02.2011. Defendant firm is wrongfully occupying
the suit premises in the said building. Defendant is a trespasser. There is
no landlord and/or tenant relationship between the plaintiff and
defendant. Hence plaintiff filed the present suit for possession of the
suit premises and compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month.
Plaintiff valued the suit at Rs.1,14,300/- being the 150 months rent i.e.,
at the rate of Rs.762/- per month and paid Court fees as per section 6
(i) (j) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959.
4. Contention of advocate for the defendant is that plaintiff is
claiming possession of the suit premises on the basis of ownership.
Market value of the suit premises is about Rs.75,000/- to Rs.80,000/-
per square feet. Thus the total valuation of the suit premises is above
Rs.2 Crores at the time of filing of the suit and the defendant also
averred this fact in the written statement. Plaintiff is also claiming
compensation of Rs.50,000/- per month from the defendant for
wrongful occupation of the suit premises which shows that the market
value of the suit premises is more than Rs.2 Crores. Plaintiff incorrectly
valued the suit as per provision of section 6 (iv) (j) of the said Act.
Plaintiff undervalued the suit. Therefore plaintiff has to value the suit as
per section 6 (v) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act. Hence he prayed
for allowing the notice of motion by relying on stamp duty Ready
-- 2 of 6 --
ORDER ..3.. NM NO. 4487/2019
Reckoner of the properties in Mumbai for the year 2014.
5. Advocate for the plaintiff submitted that plaintiff properly
valued the suit by calculating 150 months rent i.e., Rs.762/- per month
X 150 months which is in consonance with the ruling of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. In support of contention, he relied on the Judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Prem Ratan Vohra vs. Lalitkumar Dayalji
Kakhani (1988 Mh.L.J. 321) and prayed for dismissal of Notice of
Motion.
6. Perused the Judgment relied on by advocate for the plaintiff. It
is in respect of suit for possession filed by the licensor/tenant who
inducted the licensee on the basis of Leave and License Agreement.
Hence the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that the basis for calculating
the market value of the property should be the compensation and not
the rent of the premises. It is the net income which accrues to the
licensor which should be taken as its unit value and its market value
should be arrived at by multiplying it by 12 ½ year's purchase or by 100
and 50 months value. In the present case, plaintiff specifically pleaded
that there is no landlord and/or tenant relationship between the
plaintiff and defendant. Hence the judgment relied on by advocate for
plaintiff is not helpful to the plaintiff to support on the point of correct
valuation of the present suit.
7. As per section 8 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 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 revision of any
valuation made, the Court may revise the valuation and determine the
correct valuation and may hold such inquiry as it things fit for such
-- 3 of 6 --
ORDER ..4.. NM NO. 4487/2019
purpose.
8. Suit is for possession of the suit premises. Plaintiff is claiming
possession on the basis of ownership. Hence plaintiff has to value the
suit as per market value of the suit premises as per section 6 (v) of the
Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 and rule 2 of the Maharashtra Suits
Valuation (Determination of Value of Land for Jurisdiction Purposes)
Rules, 1983. Provisions of computation of the court fees is given in
section 6 (xii) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, where the suit is
between the landlord and tenant. However admittedly as per the
plaintiff's own case, there is no landlord and/or tenant relationship
between the plaintiff and defendant. Hence the plaintiff wrongly valued
and grossly undervalued the suit. Accordingly inquiry into valuation of
market value of the suit premises is required as the plaintiff did not
mention in the plaint real market value of the suit premises on the date
of institution of the suit. Under the facts and circumstances, notice of
motion is liable to be allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). In the
result, following order.
ORDER
1. Notice of motion no. 4487/2019 is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (b).
2. Registrar (Civil) is directed to make inquiry into valuation of the
market value of the suit premises i.e., Room No.3 admeasuring about
266.56 sq. fts. build up area situated on the ground floor of Madhoram
Building, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai – 400 002 as per Ready Reckoner of
the properties in Mumbai on the date of institution of the suit.
3. For inquiry into market value of the suit premises, Registrar
(Civil) to exercise powers vested under section 10 of the Maharashtra
Court Fees Act and furnish the report before this Court within two
-- 4 of 6 --
ORDER ..5.. NM NO. 4487/2019
months from the date of this order.
4. Advocate for both parties to co-operate the registrar in making
inquiry as above and they are at liberty to produce all relevant material
for ascertaining the real market value of the suit premises on the date of
institution of the suit.
5. Accordingly notice of motion no.4487/2019 stands disposed of.
(Sunil T. Soor)
Judge
City Civil Court, Gr.Mumbai
Date : 26.11.2021
Typed on : 26.11.2021
HHJ signed on : 26.11.2021
-- 5 of 6 --
ORDER ..6.. NM NO. 4487/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
DATED 26.11.2021 , 2.30 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME Mrs. V. N. Rajgole.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
H.H.J. Shri. S. T. Soor
C.R.No.02
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
26.11.2021
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
26.11.2021
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 26.11.2021
-- 6 of 6 --