Delhi District Court
Smt. Neeru Luthra vs Sh. Sunil Luthra on 6 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUCHI LALER, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CUM RENT CONTROLLER (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
Suit No. 199/14
Unique Case ID No.: 02402C0392952014
In the matter of :
Smt. Neeru Luthra
W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Luthra
R/o L126, Third Floor, Sabji Mandi
Jagat Ram Park, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi110092 ....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Sunil Luthra
S/o Sh. Ashok Luthra
R/o 63/64, West Guru Angad Nagar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi110092
2. Smt. Rakhi Luthra
W/o Sh. Sunil Luthra
D/o Late Sh. Vijay Wadhwa
R/o 51, Anarkali Garden,
2nd Floor, Jagat Puri, Delhi51.
Also at:
R/o L126, third Floor,
Sabji Mandi, Jagat Ram Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi110092. ...Defendants
O R D E R
1. Vide this order, I shall decide an application under Order 7 rule 11 r/w section 151 CPC moved on behalf of the defendant No. 2. Suit No. 199/14 Neeru Luthra Vs. Sunil Luthra and others Page No. 1/7
2. Brief narration of the facts as disclosed in the plaint is as under:
2.1. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit for Possession, Permanent Injunction, Declaration and Recovery of Damages. The plaintiff has claimed herself to be the owner of the property bearing No. L126, Third Floor, Sabji Mandi, Jagat Ram Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as the suit property).
2.2 The defendant No. 1 is the son and defendant No. 2 is the daughterinlaw of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant No. 2 has been harassing her and she has disowned the defendants vide public notice, dated 12.09.2014 in the news paper " MAHA MEDHA". It has been claimed that plaintiff terminated the licence of the defendants on 12.09.2014. Thus, the defendants are liable to pay use and occupation charges @ Rs. 10,000/ per month.
Hence, the present suit.
3. Defendant No. 1 made a statement before the court on 10.02.2015 that he has no concern with the suit property. He also undertook not to enter into the said property.
4. The defendant No. 2 has contested the present suit by filing written statement wherein she has taken preliminary objections such as the present suit is hit by Section 7 of Family Court Act, 1984, the suit has been filed in collusion with the defendant No. 1, no cause of action has arisen against her, the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court Fee and Suit No. 199/14 Neeru Luthra Vs. Sunil Luthra and others Page No. 2/7 jurisdiction and is hit by Section 9 of CPC. The defendant No. 2 has stated that suit property is her matrimonial home and she has a right to reside in shared household under the Provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The defendant No. 2 has claimed that the suit property was purchased from the funds of defendant No. 1 and her possession is protected under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Accordingly, defendant No. 2 has prayed that the present suit be dismissed with heavy cost.
5. Replication to the written statement of defendant No. 2 has been filed, wherein allegations to the contrary have been controverted and averments made in the plaint have been reiterated.
6. In the present application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, the defendant No. 2 has averred that the present suit is hit by the Provisions of Section 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The defendant No. 2 has stated that she is in possession of the suit property as the same is her matrimonial home. The defendant No. 2 has alleged that the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court Fee and Jurisdiction. Accordingly, rejection of the plaint has been prayed with heavy cost.
7. Reply has been filed on behalf of plaintiff wherein the plaintiff has denied that the present suit is hit by Section 7 & 8 of Family Courts Act, 1984. The plaintiff has stated that the suit property is her selfacquired property and defendant No. 2 being the daughterinlaw has no right to live in Suit No. 199/14 Neeru Luthra Vs. Sunil Luthra and others Page No. 3/7 the suit property. The plaintiff has claimed that the suit has been properly valued. She has prayed for dismissal of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.
8. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
9. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, inter alia, mandates rejection of plaint where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. An application under this provision is to be decided entirely on a perusal of plaint and documents filed along with it. Defence of the defendant is not relevant for the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code nor can it be looked into.
10. In M/s Texem Engineering Vs. M/s. Texcomash Export, 179 (2011) Delhi Law Times 963, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that "There can be no gainsaying that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint has to be decided entirely on a perusal of the plaint and documents filed along with it".
11. The defendant has prayed for rejection of the plaint mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the defendant has alleged that the present suit is hit by Section 7 & 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
12. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, confer jurisdiction upon Family Courts with respect to the suit and proceedings of the nature referred in the Explanation appended to that Section. Explanation to Section 7 of Family Courts Act, 1984 is reproduced hereunder:
Suit No. 199/14 Neeru Luthra Vs. Sunil Luthra and others Page No. 4/7
"Explanation:The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:
(a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for decree of a nullity of marriage ( declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage:
(b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person:
(c) a suit or proceedings between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them:
(d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship:
(e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any person:
(f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance:
(g) a suit or proceeding in relation to to the guardianship of the
person or the custody of, or access to, any minor".
13. Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 excludes jurisdiction of the other courts to try any matter upon which jurisdiction has been conferred on Family Courts by Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
14. By way of present suit, the plaintiff has sought relief of Mandatory Injunction thereby seeking possession of the suit property, relief of Declaration that she has no relations with the defendants and prayed for damages. The present suit has been filed by a mother against her son and daughterinlaw. In the instant suit, no issue as regards the validity of the marriage of the defendants or as to matrimonial status of the defendants Suit No. 199/14 Neeru Luthra Vs. Sunil Luthra and others Page No. 5/7 needs adjudication. The present suit does not arise out of matrimonial relationship of the defendants. Present is a simplicitor suit filed by a Licensor against her licensees which in fact is a civil dispute, requiring adjudication by a Civil Court.
15. Present suit does not fall within the purview of the suit and proceedings as mentioned in the explanation to Section 7 of the Family Court Act, 1984. Accordingly, the ground challenging the jurisdiction of this Court is without merits and is dismissed.
16. The second plea for rejection of the plaint which has been raised by the defendant No. 2 is that the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court Fees and Jurisdiction. Perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiff is claiming the suit property to be her selfacquired property and the defendants were permitted to reside in the suit property in the capacity of the licensee.
The license of the defendant has been revoked vide legal notice, dated 12.09.2014. The said legal notice has been duly served upon the defendant No. 2 inasmuch as the same has been replied by her vide reply dated 22.09.2014.
17. It is well settled proposition of law that after revocation of license, an owner is entitled to seek possession by way of mandatory injunction and the court fee would be as required in the case of suit for mandatory injunction. (Reference may be made to the judgment titled as Jagdish Vs. Brij Lal, 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 777, Puran Mal Modi Vs. Rajasthan Investors Pvt. Ltd., Suit No. 199/14 Neeru Luthra Vs. Sunil Luthra and others Page No. 6/7 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 490, Sh. Rathpavarmaraja Vs Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 129, Conrad Dias of Bombay Vs. Joseph Dias of Bombay, AIR 1995 Bomb. 2010).
18. Thus, as regards the relief of possession, the plaintiff is required to pay Court Fee as paid in a suit for Mandatory Injunction. The plaintiff has further sought relief of Declaration and Permanent Injunction for which she has rightly valued her suit for a sum of Rs 200/ and Rs. 130/. Quantum of damages, if any, payable would be ascertained at the time of final adjudication of the suit for which the plaintiff has undertaken to pay requisite court fee.
19. The plaintiff was required to value her suit at Rs. 130/ for relief of possession in the shape of Mandatory Injunction whereas she has paid a court fee of Rs. 4003/. The plaintiff has paid court fees in excess. Thus, on perusal of the plaint, it is apparent that the present suit is properly valued for the purpose of Court Fees and Jurisdiction by the plaintiff. The plea of inappropriate valuation of suit raised by the defendant No. 2 is untenable at this stage.
20. In view of the aforesaid reasons and discussion, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, moved on behalf of defendant No. 2 is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Announced in the open court (Shuchi Laler)
Dated:06.07.2015 Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Suit No. 199/14 Neeru Luthra Vs. Sunil Luthra and others Page No. 7/7