In Eviction Suits, Landlord Must Pay Court Fee Based On Rents Payable By Tenant And Not On Security Deposit: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court held that in an eviction suit filed by a landlord for evicting the tenant, a landlord was required to pay a Court fee on the rents payable and not the security deposit since it has to be refunded to the tenant upon vacation of premises.
The owner of the suit property had leased it to tenants. While the tenancy was terminated in accordance with law, in spite of that the tenants did not vacate the suit property. Consequently, a suit was filed by the owner and the said suit was valued at a sum which included the annual rent to be paid by the tenants, mesne profits, and the cost of a legal notice. The tenants had already deposited a certain amount towards security.
The owner contended that the Court fee could not have been paid from the security amount, which was the advance amount payable by the owner to the tenants at the time of vacating the property. The owner further argued that the suit should have been valued at a higher cost and that a Civil Judge, Junior Division should try the case and not the Civil Judge, Senior Division.
The High Court had to determine the proper valuation of the suit.
A Single Bench of Justice M.I. Arun observed, “In the instant case, though the respondent herein has termed the sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as a premium in the original suit filed by him, it is admitted that he has to pay back the amount and the same is received by him as an advance for him having let out the property in favour of the petitioners…Thus, the respondent ought not to have taken into consideration a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- to value the suit filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division. He should have valued the same at Rs.1,00,000/-.”
Advocate M. Sudhakar Pai represented the petitioners, while Advocate Syed Akbar Pasha appeared for the respondent.
The Trial Court had treated the contentions raised by the owner as preliminary issues and had held that the suit was properly valued.
The Court explained an owner was required to pay a court fee considering the rents payable while excluding the security deposit, which is refundable to the tenant upon vacating the premises in an eviction suit against a tenant.
The Court took note of the fact that the owner had to pay back the amount which he had received as an advance for him letting out his property to the tenants.
The Court held that the owner “ought not to have taken into consideration a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- to value the suit filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division” and stated that “the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge is over and above a sum of Rs.5,00,000/.”
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order of the trial court and disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: B. Mohammed Kunhi & Anr v. Abdul Saleem Hassan (Neutral Citation: 024:KHC:6612)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate M. Sudhakar Pai
Respondent: Advocate Syed Akbar Pasha
