- (1.)THIS petition by landlord under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing of the order (Annexure P/10) passed in revision, preferred by the tenants, aggrieved of the order of the trial court, whereby, on transfer of the application under Section 23-A of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for short, the 'act', the Civil court treated the same as a plaint to dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III of the Act, in view of Section 9 of the M. P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 1985 (Act No. 7 of 1985) (for short, the 'amendment Act'), and directed the landlord to pay the court-fees as leviable in accordance with Section 7 (xi) (cc) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
(2.)THE facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner/landlord filed an application on 28-9-1984 under Section 23-A of the Act seeking eviction of the respondents (Nos. 1 and 2)/tenants from the non-residential accommodation on bona fide requirement. Because of the enforcement of the Amendment Act from 27-4-1985 the applications by landlords (except those who do not fall in the categories defined in Section 23-J of the Act) for obtaining order of eviction of tenants on the ground of bona fide need, stood transferred for trial to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in view of Section 9 of the Amendment Act, which reads as under:-
"9. Transfer of pending application to civil Court.--An application filed by the landlord, other than that defined in Section 23-J, to evict the tenant exclusively on the ground of "bona fide" requirement of accommodation under Section 23-A of the principal Act before 16th January 1985 and pending on such date before the Rent Controlling Authority shall stand transferred to a civil Court of competent jurisdiction and such Court shall proceed to dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III as if it were a plaint. "

(3.)ON transfer of the application, received on 17-12-1985, the District Judge made it over- to the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The tenants without filing the written statement, moved an application on 22-8-1987 for dismissing the suit under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code for non-payment of the requisite court-fees on the plaint. The landlord amended the plaint and paid court-fees of Rs. 772/- valuing the claim for ejectment on the basis of annual rental value in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 (xi) (cc) of the Court Fees Act. The tenants contended that in court-fees has to be paid not only on the basis of the valuation of the suit as above, but ad valorem court-fee is to be paid on the arrears of rent till 17-11-1987. The trial Court dismissed the application. Review application was also dismissed. The tenants took the matter in revision before the District Judge. The revisional Court (first Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior) allowed the revision and directed the landlord to pay ad valorem court-fees on the arrears of rent claimed till 17-11-1987, placing reliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Decon Marketing Ltd. v. Kallu Bhai, 1986 MPRCJ 306, wherein it is observed:
"order IV, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the Court. Rule 2 provides that the Court shall cause the suit to be entered in the register of suits. Order V, Rule 1, provides that when a suit has been 'duly instituted,' a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim on a date to be specified therein. The phrase 'duly instituted' must mean a plaint with proper court-fees and other essential requirements of a plaint. It was not disputed before me that respondent No. 1 did not pay court-fees required on plaint in an eviction suit. It was the first and foremost duty of the transferee civil Court to have called upon the plaintiff to make good the deficit court-fee before proceeding further in the suit. The plaintiff did not dispute that if the 'application' is treated as plaint, it has to be affixed with requisite court-fee as well. In the absence of proper court-fees, the Court below could not treat it as a plaint at all. "