This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the third defendant in O.S.No.41 of 2004 on the file of the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai, aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Judge, Pudukkottai, in rejecting the memo filed in respect of the jurisdiction point raised by him.
2. The plaintiff, in O.S.No.41 of 2004, filed a suit for recovery of the possession of the suit property by the defendants and for damages for use and occupation. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property was leased to the defendants and the lease expired on 31.12.2003. Despite notice given by the plaintiff to the defendants to vacate and hand over the possession, the defendants did not hand over the possession and therefore, filed the suit for recovery of possession and for damages for use and occupation. While valuing the suit, the plaintiff has taken into consideration the monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- and paid the Court fee under Section 43(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and valued the suit property at Rs.60,000/- for the first relief. The plaintiff valued the second relief for damages for use and occupation at Rs.25,000/- per month and calculated a sum of Rs.50,000/- for two months and paid Court fee thereon. Thus, the plaintiff valued the total value at Rs.1,10,000/- and filed the suit before the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai.
3. The 3rd defendant/revision petitioner herein filed a memo stating that each relief is separate and distinct and the plaintiff has to pay only on the higher ground and therefore, Court fee is to be paid only for the sum of Rs.60,000/- and hence, the suit filed before the Sub-Court is not maintainable and this case ought to be transferred to the District Munsif Court. This memo was rejected by the lower Court, holding that as per the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit valuation Act, the plaintiff valued the suit at Rs.1,10,000/- and the reliefs prayed for, are not alternative but distinct and separate relief and hence, the jurisdiction of the Court has to be ascertained by adding the valuation for each relief and therefore, the Sub-Court has jurisdiction to decide the same.
4. Mr.K.Baalasundaram, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that as per Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, all cases must be filed in the lowest Forum and the two reliefs are not arising out of the same cause of action and therefore, as per Section 6(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter it is referred as "the Act"), where more reliefs than one, based on the same cause of action, are sought in alternative, plaint shall be chargeable with the higher fees leviable on the reliefs and hence, the Court Fee liable to be paid is on the higher on the valuation and if so calculated, the Sub Court has no jurisdiction.
5. According to me, the arguments of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. Section 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act says that "in any suit in which separate and distinct reliefs are sought based on the same cause of action, the plaint shall be chargeable with a fee on the aggregate or value of the reliefs.
Provided that, if a relief is sought only as an ancillary to the main relief, the plaint shall be chargeable only on the value of the main relief."
6. Therefore, under 6(1) of the Act that when separate and distinct reliefs are sought for, on the same cause of action, the plaint shall be chargeable with a fee on the aggregate or value of the reliefs.
7. In this case as stated supra, the first relief was valued at Rs.60,000/- and the second relief prayed for was damages for use and occupation, valued at Rs.50,000/- Admittedly, the defendants were tenants. Therefore, the Court fee shall be paid on the Annual rent of the demised premises. According to the plaintiff, the rent as per the agreement was Rs.5,000/- per month and yearly rent is Rs.60,000/- and he paid the court fee therefor. In respect of the second relief,viz., damages for use and occupation, the plaintiff claimed damages for two months at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month valued the same at Rs.50,000/- and paid Court fee therefor. Both these reliefs are separate and distinct arising out of the same cause of action. Hence, as per Section 6(1) of the said Act, the plaint shall be chargeable with a fee on the aggregate value of the reliefs and if so construed, the value of the both reliefs will be Rs.60,000/- and Rs.50,000/- totaling a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- and hence, the Sub- Court has got jurisdiction.
7. As per Section 6(2) of the Act, "where more reliefs than one based on the same cause of action are sought in the alternative in any suit, the plaint shall be chargeable with the highest of the fees leviable on the reliefs." This Sub-clause is not applicable to this case as the reliefs are not sought for in the alternative way. The reliefs are independent and separate. Therefore, Section 6(2) of the said Act will not be applicable. Section 6(3) of the said Act makes it very clear that "where a suit embraces two or more distinct and different causes of action and separate reliefs are sought based on them, either alternatively or cumulatively, the plaint shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the fees with which plaints would be chargeable under this Act if separate suits were instituted in respect of the several causes of action." Therefore, Section 6(1) of the Act is applicable and in my opinion the plaintiff has correctly valued the suit properly.
8. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the cause of actions are different and separate and the reliefs are sought for different causes of action. Even assuming so, as per Section 6(3) of the said Act, the plaint shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the fee with which the plaint should be chargeable under this Act and in that event also, the total value of Rs.1,10,000/- is to be taken into account for fixing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Hence, the lower Court has correctly dismissed the memo and the Sub-Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.
9. Hence, there is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
ssl To The Sub-Judge, Pudukkottai.