K. S. Sidhu, J. - (1.) THE plaintiffs (respondents herein) brought a suit against the defendants (petitioners herein) for recovery of possession of a house on the revetments that the defendants were in occupation of the house as tenants on a rental of Rs 200/- per mensem and that they were liable to be evicted because hey had made material alterations in the building and also because the plaintiffs enquired the premises reasonably and bone fide for their own use and occupation. THE plaintiffs also mentioned that the defendants were in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 500/- and prayed for recovery of this amount. THE suit was valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at (i) Rs. 2400/- (one year's rent as per the requirement of section 41 (2) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961) in respect of the relief of possession based on the cause of action of a suit for eviction by a landlord against his tenant and (ii) Rs. 500/- in respect of the cause of action for recovery of rent. THE consolidated plaint praying for the twin relief of possession & recovery of money was instituted in the court of lowest grade (i. e. Munsif) having a pecuniary jurisdiction extending upto a maximum amount of Rs. 5,000/ -.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the suit, the defendants ran into arrears of rent from April 16, 1976 to December 31, 1979. The plaintiffs sought and obtained from the Munsif an order under Order VI Rule 17 C. P. C. granting leave to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint adding therein an additional ground of eviction, viz. , non-payment of rent for a period of more than 6 months, and recovery of additional arrears of rent for the aforementioned period amounting to Rs. 8900/ -. The valuation clause in the plaint was also amended in respect of the relief of recovery of money inasmuch as the valuation in that behalf was altered from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 9400/-and aggregate valuation was thus increased to Rs. 2400/- + Rs. 9400, in all Rs. 11800/ -. The amended plaint was filed on December 22,1979. On July 7,1980, the defendants filed their written statement in answer to the amended plaint and the Munsif made an order under section 13 (3), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, provisionally determining the rent from February 1,1976 to July 31, 1980, at the rate of Rs. 200/- per mensem (total Rs. 10800/- ). and interest thereon at Rs. 1431/-, in all Rs. 12231/ -. The defendants deposited this amount in the court as required by law and thus finished the ground of eviction based on non-payment of arrears of rent for 6 months or more. The plaintiffs obtained leave for the second time to amend the plaint with a view to adding another ground, viz. , subletting, for an order of eviction against the defendants. The second amended plaint was filed on August 10,1981. On November 25, 1981, the defendants made an application for leave to amend the written statement so that they could add therein an objection as to the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif to entertain the amended plaint filed on and court 22, 1979, in which the aggregated value for purposes of jurisdiction December fees had been stated as Rs. 2400/- for eviction and Rs. 9400/- for recovery of money in all Rs. 11,800/ -. The defendants filed still another application on July 15, 1981, for summary dismissal of the suit on the ground that it was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of the Munsif before him it was pending. By his order, dated, July 15, 1982, the learned Munsif dismissed both the applications of the defendants mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs had given up their claim for recovery of money and that they were electing to prosecute only one of the two causes of action, that is, for eviction of the defendants from the premises in suit. Learned Munsif arrived at this conclusion on the strength of the authority of this Court reported as Smt. Uma-Gupta vs. Ramesh Chandra (1 ). This is what the court held in the cited case : - "i am, therefore, of the opinion that a suit purely on the ground set forth in section 13 (1) (a) of the Act for eviction is maintainable and it is not necessary also to sue for arrears of rent relating to which the default is alleged to be committed by the tenant. In such a suit it is the duty of the court under Sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Act to provisionally determine the amount of rent to be deposited in court or to be paid to the land- lord by the tenant, and if the tenant fails to deposit or pay the amount as aforesaid the landlord will be entitled for an order of eviction. No doubt the plaintiff-tenant will get the arrears of rent without paying the requisite court fee, but it is for the legislature to see. "
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated, July 15, 1982, passed by the Munsif, the defendants have filed this petition for revision under section 115 C. P. C. for its reversal and for an order directing the trial court to return the amended plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the plaintiffs entered a caveat on behalf of the plaintiffs. After hearing both sides, I am of opinion that the learned Munsif has committed no error of jurisdiction in dismissing the defendants' applications aforementioned. As already indicated, the plaintiffs have abandoned their suit claim based on the second cause of action for recovery of arrears of rent with the result that the plaint, as laid, now survives only for the first cause of action for eviction. The value for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction for this cause of action is admittedly Rs. 2400/- which is the amount of rent for one year. The learned Munsif is certainly possessed of the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide a suit of the valuation of Rs. 2400/- for the limit of such jurisdiction vesting in him under law extends to Rs. 5000/ -. ;