M/S SOUTHERN TRIPLE A INVESTMENTS PVT LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.NATARAJAN ANBUMANI v. M/S. OMNE AGATE SYSTEMS PVT LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.K.R.ILANGHOVAN

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)Friday, the 22nd day of July 2011 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAHA.No.7266 OF 2010in C.S.No.838 of 2010M/S.SOUTHERN TRIPLE A INVESTMENTS PVT LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.NATARAJAN ANBUMANI, FLAT NO.8, SARAVANALAYAM, NEW NO.33, (OLD NO.19), P.S.SIVASAMY SALAI, MYLAPORE,CHENNAI -4. ..PLAINTIFF.VsM/S.OMNE AGATE SYSTEMS PVT LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.K.R.ILANGHOVAN, 2ND FLOOR, MURUGESA NAICKER COMPLEX, NO.99, GREAMS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006. ..DEFENDANT.A.No.7266 OF 2010:M/S.OMNE AGATE SYSTEMS PVT LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.K.R.ILANGHOVAN, 2ND FLOOR, MURUGESA NAICKER COMPLEX, NO.99, GREAMS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006. ...APPLICANT-VS-M/S.SOUTHERN TRIPLE A INVESTMENTS PVT LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.NATARAJAN ANBUMANI, FLAT NO.8, SARAVANALAYAM, NEW NO.33, (OLD NO.19), P.S.SIVASAMY SALAI, MYLAPORE,CHENNAI -4. ...RESPONDENT This Application praying that this Hon'ble Court bepleased to reject the plaint filed in the above Suit in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2C.S.No.838 of 2010 with costs. This Application coming on this day before this courtfor hearing the court made the following order:This application has been filed by the applicant /defendant to reject the plaint filed in C.S.No.838 of 2010with costs.2.Heard Mr.P.Anbarasan, learned counsel for theapplicant / defendant and Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel forthe respondent / plaintiff.3.The learned counsel for the applicant wouldsubmit in his argument that the suit was filed by therespondent for recovery of alleged arrears of rent to thetune of Rs.26,60,968/- with interest as claimed in theplaint. He would further submit in his argument that theapplicant had already paid a sum of Rs.14,19,600/- to therespondent as advance on the date of agreement and it wasavailable at the hands of the plaintiff on the date offiling of the suit. But while calculating the interest forthe suit amount, he did not opt to deduct the said advanceamount from the alleged arrears, and he had calculated onhigher interest rate at 24% p.a on the outstanding amountand had swelled the suit claim so as to bring it to thejurisdiction of this Court. He would further submit inhis argument that if the advance amount at the hands of theplaintiff was deducted over the outstanding amount on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3date of the suit, the remaining amount would be a lesserone and even if the calculation was done at the said higherrate of interest at 24% p.a, the total suit claim would belesser, to the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court andthis Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said plaintand therefore, the plaint should have been rejected on thatsole ground. He would further submit in his argument thatsuch a suit claim, which is not admitted, would be atRs.12,39,468/-, whereas the pecuniary jurisdiction of thisCourt would be more than Rs.25,00,000/-. He would furthersubmit in his argument that the decision of the learnedRent Controller or the learned Rent Control AppellateAuthority is not final, when the Civil Court has seized ofthe matter and therefore, the claim for the imaginaryamount of Rs.26,60,968/- with subsequent interest at 24%p.a will not sustain. He would further submit in hisargument that the applicant has made several improvementsand had also spent moneys for improving the premises andfor the functioning of the applicant company to the tune ofRs.6,89,636/- and the said amount, if deducted, the suitclaim would further be reduced below Rs.25,00,000/-. Hewould therefore request the Court to reject the plaint asnot sustainable before this Court and thus to allow theapplication.4.The learned counsel for the respondent wouldsubmit in his argument that the adjustment of the advance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4available at the hands of the respondent / plaintiff for asum of Rs.14,39,600/- was not agitated by the applicant /defendant before the learned Rent Controller inapplication filed under Section 11(4)of the Act by therespondent and therefore, the admitted arrears weredirected to be paid as against the applicant and it was notcomplied with and the appeal preferred by the applicantbefore the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority wasalso dismissed, confirming the finding of the learned RentController in directing the applicant to pay the admittedarrears and the applicant had neither comply with the saidorder nor preferred any revision and therefore, the orderof the learned Rent Controller became final and evictionwas ordered and on the basis of the order of eviction, therespondent took possession of the demised premises from theapplicant in the process of law. He would further submitin his argument that the adjustment of advance amount wasnot agitated by the applicant in the revision andtherefore, he cannot plead the said fact here and thefinding of the learned Rent Controller as arrears on thesaid date would bind against the applicant and therefore,the applicant is liable to pay the interest towards theoutstanding amount. He would also submit that aftercalculation of the outstanding amount with interest uptothe date of filing of the suit, the advance amountavailable at the hands of the respondent could be deducted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5from the suit claim and therefore, there is nothing wrongin the calculation made in the plaint and it was promptlycalculated and accepted by the Court by taking the plainton file. He would further submit in his argument that thecontention of the learned counsel for the applicant as tothe question of defective jurisdiction could only beascertained after recording evidence and thus, issues aretriable in nature. He would further submit that suchtriable issues cannot be decided in an application toreject the plaint and an order could not be passed in theapplication itself. He would further submit in hisargument that the request of the applicant to reject theplaint would not be attracted under the provisions of Order7 Rule 11 CPC. He would further request the Court todismiss the application.5.I have given anxious thoughts to the argumentsadvanced on either side.6.The admitted case of both parties would be thatthe applicant was a tenant under the respondent in respectof the demised premises for a monthly rent of Rs.1,43,980/-and it was enhanced to Rs.1,58,356/- from July 2009 andtill the date of eviction of the applicant through Court,the said rate of rent was paid by the applicant to therespondent. It is also not disputed that a RCOP was filedfor eviction of the applicant and in the said proceedingsthe application under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was filed and it wasordered by the learned Rent Controller to deposit certainamount towards admitted arrears and against which, theapplicant preferred appeal before the learned Rent ControlAppellate Authority and the order passed by the learnedRent Controller was confirmed in the said appeal and thesame was dismissed. Admittedly, no revision has beenpreferred against the said order. According to thesubmission of the respondent, since the applicant did notprefer any revision against the finding of the learned RentController and the learned Rent Control AppellateAuthority, the adjustment of advance amount towards thearrears of rent on the date of filing of the suit cannot bedone now. However, it was contended by the learnedcounsel for the applicant that the advance paid by theapplicant for a sum of Rs.14,39,600/- which was availableat the hands of the respondent should have been firstapplied for the adjustment of arrears of rent andthereafter, the said arrears could have been subjected forthe calculation of interest payable to the respondent. Itwas also contended by the applicant that there was nocontractual arrangement for payment of interest at 24% p.aon the arrears of rent. 7.The only point to be decided in this case wouldbe whether this Court ascertain the quantum of arrearspayable by the applicant to the respondent now itself and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7to come to a conclusion regarding the pecuniaryjurisdiction of this Court, in order to find thefeasibility of rejection of the plaint. For that, we haveto resort to the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Thesaid provision in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC would run as follows:-" Order 7 Rule 11 CPC : - Rejection ofPlaint:The plaint shall be rejected in thefollowing cases:-a) where it does not disclose acause of action; b) where the relief claimed isunder-valued, and the plaintiff, onbeing required by the Court to socorrect the valuation within a time tobe fixed by the Court, fails to do so;c)where the relief claimed isproperly valued, but the plaint iswritten upon paper insufficientlystamped, and the plaintiff, on beingrequired by the Court to supply therequisite stamp-paper within a time tobe fixed by the Court, fails to do so;d)where the suit appears fromthe statement in the plaint to be barredby any law;e)where it is not filed induplicate;f)where the plaintiff fails tocomply with the provisions of Rule 9; Provided that the time fixed by theCourt for the correction of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8valuation or supplying of the requisitestamp – papers shall not be extendedunless the Court, for reasons to berecorded, is satisfied that theplaintiff was prevented by any cause ofan exceptional nature from correctingthe valuation or supplying the requisitestamp – papers, as the case may be,within the time fixed by the Court andthat refusal to extend such time wouldcause grave injustice to the plaintiff."8.The grounds raised by the applicant for rejection ofthe plaint is purely depending upon the excess value of theplaint. Further reasons stated would be that theexpenditure incurred by him for improving the premises forrunning his Company at Rs.6,89,636/- if deducted, it wouldcome below the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court,namely, Rs.25,00,000/- and on that score, the plaint is notsustainable. Similarly, it has also been urged that theinterest calculated on the total arrears of amount was notsustainable since the advance amount was available with therespondent on the date of filing of the suit and therefore,if interest is calculated after leaving the advance amount,it would further reduce the suit claim to the level ofRs.12,39,468/-. No doubt, all these grounds raised by theapplicant require oral evidence in support of their claims.Even if the claim of the applicant are accepted in toto, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9the excess valuation of the plaint, if reduced, it willresult in transfer of the suit to the appropriate pecuniaryjurisdictional Court. All these grounds raised by theapplicant did not attract any of the provisions ascontemplated in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Hence, the request ofthe applicant seeking the rejection of the plaint at thisstage is not at all acceptable. Therefore, I am of theconsidered view that the application is devoid of meritsand accordingly, the application is dismissed. However, thegrounds raised by the applicant can be agitated in the suitwithout being influenced by this order.8.For the foregoing discussion, the application isdismissed. No costs.Sd/-V.P.K.J 22.07.2011 //Certified to be a true copy//Dated this the day of 2011. R.s/17.11.2011 COURT OFFICERFrom 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies ofthe Order/Judgment Decree in this format.