JUDGMENT
Devinder Gupta, J.
1. This appeal by the appellant/defendant has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed on 26.8.1997 by Shri B.S.Mathur, Additional District Judge, Delhi in suit No.453/91.
2. Facts, according to the appellant, are that respondent No.2 purchased plot No.D-53, defense Colony,New Delhi and constructed a house thereupon and as per the averments made in the plaint, the said house was thrown into Hindu Undivided Family, namely, M/s.Shanti Bhushan & Sons with Shanti Bhushan as the karta. Admittedly, the defendant/appellant was inducted as a tenant on the first floor of the building w.e.f. 1.7.1985 through lease deed dated 9.7.1985. The premises rented out are three bed rooms with attached bath rooms, one drawing and dining, servant quarters etc. The agreed monthly rent payable was Rs.4,000/-. Another hire agreement was entered into between the appellant and respondent. Appellant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month towards hire charges of furniture and fixtures. According to the appellant, thus he was making payment of Rs.6,500/-. Lease period was three years. Despite expiry of the said period, the appellant continued to remain in occupation and paying rent. As rends had increased, the same was also increased by the appellant on pressure being put on it by the respondents. Rent was increased from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.4,500/- per month of which respondent was duly informed through letter dated September, 1990 whereas the amount for use and occupation of the furniture and fixtures continued to be remained the same. Thus according to the appellant the total amount per month payable was Rs.7,000/-. Admittedly, notice dated 24,4.1991 was duly served upon the appellant terminating the tenancy of the appellant, to which reply dated 3.8.1991 was sent by the appellant. When despite termination of tenancy were not vacated, suit was instituted on 10.9.1991 for possession and damages. It is staled that on 26.11.1991 written statement filed raised preliminary objections, one of
which that suit has not been properly valued for purposes of court fee. Another application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was filed that as suit had not been properly valued for purposes of court fee, plaint was deficient in court fees, the same was liable to be rejected. This application was rejected on 23.4.1993. The appellant feeling aggrieved filed Civil Revision No.445/93 in this Court, which was disposed of on
24.5.1993 by the following order:-
“The trial Court shall direct the respondent/plaintiff to make up the admitted deficiency of court fees.”
3. It is the appellant’s case that despite the order passed in civil revision, the respondents willfully, knowingly and deliberately deposited the court fee of Rs.54,000/- only on rent of Rs.4,500/- per month. Thus the court fee was not paid by putting valuation at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month i.e. Rs.84,000/- per annum. Suit was valued for purposes of possession only at Rs.54,000/- instead of Rs.84,000/-. Thus the suit was liable to be dismissed. In spite of the order passed on 29.11.1994 by Additional District Judge, Delhi, the defendant/appellant continued to pay damages for suit premises at the agreed rate of rent of Rs.7,000/- (Rs.4,500/- per month on account rent/damages and Rs.2,500/- per month on account of hire charges for furniture and fixtures). Deficiency in court fee was not made good. In this back ground the appellant has assailed the judgment and decree stating that neither the notice terminating the tenancy was legal and valid nor plaint was properly valued for court fee, which ought to have been rejected.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length at the admission stage. After suit had been filed the defendant had put in appearance but was proceeded against ex parte and ex parte decree was passed on 22.9.1992. Ex parte decree was set aside on 15.10.1992. After putting in appearance written statement was filed by the defendant in which preliminary objection as regards valuation was taken besides legality and validity of notice of termination of tenancy. Following issues were framed:-
“l. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties as alleged? O.P.D.
2.Whether the suit has been filed and the plaint signed and verified by a duly authorized person? OPP.
3.Whether the suit is not properly valued for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? O.P.D.
4. Whether the defendant increased the rent of the suit premises from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.4,500/- at the instance of the plaintiff as alleged w.e.f. 1.9.90? OPD.
5.Whether the amount of Rs.4,000/- being paid after receipt of the notice by the defendant is towards rent or towards damages? Onus Parties.
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate, for which period and to what amount? OPP.
7.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages mesne profits. If so at what rate, for which period and to what amount? OPP.
8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of possession and damages as prayed? OPP.
9. Relief.”
5. An additional issue was also framed on 23.4.93:-
“Addl.Issue.
Whether the amount of Rs.2500/- being charged by the plaintiff for use of
furniture and fixtures in the premises is to be included in the total amount
of rent of Rs.4500/-, if so its effect? Onus parties.”
6. The: trial court upheld the legality and validity of the notice and held that the suit was been properly valued for purposes of court and jurisdiction. While decreeing the suit, Court also proceeded to pass decree for damages mesne profits in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month w.e.f. 17.1991 till the dale of recovery of possession and interest on mesne profits at the rate of 12% p.a., after adjustment of the amount, on account of the amount paid by the defendant after institution of the suit. Costs of the suit was also allowed. Decree sheet was directed to be prepared only after the plaintiff would pay the requisite court fee.
7. Having considered the submissions made at the bar, we are of the view that there is hardly any force in the appeal. The same is liable to be dismissed.
8. Admittedly, the premises were let out on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/-. Additional Rs.2,500/- was payable being an amount of hire charges for furniture and fixtures, which was agreed to be paid as per separate agreement. Thus is would not constitute rent of the premises. The rent was admittedly enhanced from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.4,500/-per month. The mere fact that the appellant has been paying a consolidated sum of Rs.7,000/- (Rs.4,500/- on account of rent and Rs.2,500/- on account of hire charges for furniture and fixtures), the said amount of Rs.7,000/- would not constitute rent for the purposes of computation of court fee in a suit for recovery of possession . Trial court was right in observing that suit was valued correctly for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction as regards the relief for possession, which was valued at Rs.54,000/-. The tad 1 hat there was some deficiency in payment of court fee earlier, the same was rectified when the plaintiff paid additional amount of court fee, and when plaintiffs attention was drawn to that aspect. Plaint could not have been rejected without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to make good the deficiency in court fee. As the plaint was rightly valued for purposes of court fee on rent of Rs.54,000/-, being the rent for the past 12 months prior to institution of the suit.
9. Receipt of notice is not disputed. Admittedly, the tenancy was monthly, terminable on 15 days notice. Neither any ambiguity or illegality has been shown or pointed out in the notice nor there is one. The notice in clear terms has terminated the tenancy and called upon the appellant to hand over physical and vacant possession. Trial court was thus justified in observing that the notice terminating tenancy was legal and valid. The amount of court fee payable under the Court Fees Act in a suit between landlord and tenant for recovery of immoveable property after determination of tenancy is according to the rent of the immoveable property to which suit refers, payable for one year next before the dale of the plaint. There is no ground to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial court. Dismissed.