Court Fee Payable In Landlord's Eviction Suit Can't Include Security Deposit Which Is To Be Refunded To Tenant Upon Vacating Premises: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has held that in a suit filed by a landlord for evicting a tenant, the landlord is required to pay a Court fee on the rent payable and not include the security deposit which is an advance paid by the tenant to the landlord.A single judge bench of Justice M I Arun said “In a suit filed by the landlord for evicting the tenant, he is required to pay a Court fee on...
The Karnataka High Court has held that in a suit filed by a landlord for evicting a tenant, the landlord is required to pay a Court fee on the rent payable and not include the security deposit which is an advance paid by the tenant to the landlord.
A single judge bench of Justice M I Arun said “In a suit filed by the landlord for evicting the tenant, he is required to pay a Court fee on the rents payable and cannot take into consideration the security deposit, which are the advance amounts paid which he is required to refund to the tenant upon the tenant vacating the premises concerned.”
It added, “It is immaterial whether he terms the same as a premium or an advance or as a security deposit in the original suit.”
The court made these observations while allowing a plea filed by tenants who had questioned the filing of suit by the landlord before the Senior Civil Judge at Mangaluru.
The petitioners argued that the suit was not properly valued and the Civil Judge, Senior Division, had no jurisdiction to try the case and the plaintiff had to be presented before the Civil Judge, Junior Division. The trial Court framed an additional issue and held that the suit had been properly valued by way of its order dated 25.09.2019.
The bench noted that in the said suit, the respondent contended that a sum of Rs.65,000 was the annual rent to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent and that the petitioners had deposited a sum of Rs.6,50,000 in favour of the respondent, which the respondent was liable to pay back to the petitioners upon them vacating the suit property. The suit had been valued at a sum of Rs.7,50,000 and a Court fee was paid on the same.
Referring to Sections 21 and 41 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, and placing reliance on the judgment of the High Court in the case of K.Ramachandra Rao and Others Vs K.G.Ramamohana Gupta and Others (2006), the court said “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 it was held that the respondent ought not to have considered the sum of Rs.6,50,000 to value the suit filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, but should have valued the same at Rs.1,00,000.
It added that since the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge was over and above a sum of Rs.5,00,000, the impugned order passed by the trial Court was liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, it directed the trial Court to return the plaint to the plaintiff to enable him to present the same before the appropriate Court, and for the excessive Court fee paid to be refunded.
Appearance: Advocate M. Sudhakar Pai for Petitioners
Advocate Syed Akbar Pasha for Respondent
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 104
Case Title: B Mohammed Kunhi & ANR AND Abdul Saleem Hassan
Case No: Civil Revision Petition no 461 OF 2019