A. Divakrupamani and Another Vs. A. Sakuntala Devi and Others

.....- court cannot fix court fee on mere allegation of joint possession in plaint - held, court is empowered to look into question of adequacy of court fee at time of trial and subsequently return additional court fees if paid. - all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in accordance with sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 5. the notice to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5 arises only in respect of a tenant who did not take recourse to section 8 or section 9 before an application for eviction has been made against him in respect of any rent in arrears by date of that application, whereas in respect of rent that becomes subsequently due since date of application for eviction, the tenant is bound to pay or deposit regularly until termination of proceedings in order to enable him to contest the application. any violation of section 11(1) to (3) and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 makes the tenant liable for the adverse consequences under sub-section (4) of section 11. thus, the provisions of section 11 and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 are intended only to ensure the payment and deposit of rent including arrears during pendency and till termination of proceedings for eviction. the forfeiture of right of tenant to contest in case of default is to protect the rights and interests of landlord pending such an application for eviction, but not to..........possession, the court fee payable is according to the valuation of 3/4th of the market value of the share which the plaintiff sought for. the court of the chief judge subsequently has now called upon the plaintiffs to pay the court fee on the ground that the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to be in joint possession.3. at the inception, the trial court has to go by the recitals of the plaint and if the same is challenged by the defendants at a later point of time, the court can always frame a triable issue as to whether the suit is properly valued and whether the court fee paid is proper. even otherwise, at any stage, the court is always empowered under section 11 of the a.p. court fee and suit valuation act, if a fresh situation arises or fact is brought to its notice, to give check slip as to why proper court fee in the view of the courtshould not be paid. but, these are the stages which will arise later and suffice it to say, at this juncture the suit ought to have been numbered.4. hence, we direct the lower court to number the suit and proceed further and issue notices to the defendants.5. learned counsel for the appellants has cited a judgment of the supreme court in neelavalhi v. n. natarajan, : [1980]2scr307 , but the same cannot be considered at this juncture and the same may be projected whenever a requisition is given to the appellants to pay more court fee and if a contest is made on the valuation issue.5. the ccca is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.no costs.