Nand Kishore Kalra v. Harish Mathur, 2015 

Introduction 

The case Nand Kishore Kalra v. Harish Mathur is important for understanding the application of Section 7(i) and Section 7(xi)(cc) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. It deals with how court fees are calculated in suits for arrears of rent (based on the amount claimed) and eviction or possession (based on annual rent). This case also highlights the importance of jurisdiction, written admissions, and the concept of substantial question of law under Section 100 of the CPC in second appeals.

Relevant Provisions

1. Section 7 (xi)(cc) of the Court Fees Act, 1870: Relates to suits filed by landlords for eviction (recovery of possession). Court fee is calculated based on the annual rent of the premises.
2. Section 7 (i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870: Applies to claims for arrears of rent. Court fee is based on the amount claimed.
3. Section 100 of the CPC, 1908: Governs second appeals and restricts them to cases involving a substantial question of law.
4. Section 21(2) of the CPC, 1908: Bars a party from raising a jurisdictional objection in appeal if it was not raised at the trial stage in a timely manner.

Facts

• The plaintiff (landlord) filed a civil suit seeking possession (ejectment) and arrears of rent amounting to ₹2,88,600 from the defendant (tenant).
• The agreed rent was initially ₹600 per month, but the plaintiff claimed it had increased to ₹11,000 per month from 2011.
• The defendant continued to pay rent at ₹600 per month. However, in an earlier written statement (Ex. PW1/5), the defendant admitted the rent was ₹11,000 per month.
• Consequently, the plaintiff withdrew the eviction petition filed under the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act) and filed a civil suit, since the DRC Act only applies where rent does not exceed ₹3,500.

Case History

1. Trial Court (Civil Judge): Ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering possession and recovery of ₹2,88,600 in arrears.
2. First Appellate Court (ADJ): Upheld the Trial Court's decision.
3. Second Appeal: The defendant filed a second appeal before the Delhi High Court under Section 100 CPC.

Issues

1. Whether the monthly rent was ₹600 or ₹11,000?
2. Did the Trial Court have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3. Was the defendant required to be confronted with his admission during cross-examination?
4. Does the case raise a substantial question of law justifying a second appeal under Section 100 CPC?

Ratio Decidendi of Delhi High Court:

1. The Delhi High Court held that the defendant himself had admitted in writing (in his earlier application – Ex. PW1/5) that the monthly rent was ₹11,000.
2. This written admission was clear, voluntary, and specific, so there was no need to confront him with it again during cross-examination.
3.  The Court also said that objections related to jurisdiction must be raised at the proper stage during the trial. Since the defendant did not raise the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction in time, he could not raise it later in appeal, as per Section 21(2) CPC.
4. Even though the objection about jurisdiction was not valid (as it was not raised at the right time), the plaintiff still amended the plaint to reduce the claim as a precaution. which brought the case within the jurisdiction limit of the Civil Judge.
5. The High Court also found that both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court had given correct factual findings based on evidence.

Final Decision by Delhi High Court:

1. The Court concluded that there was no “substantial question of law” involved in the second appeal. Therefore, under Section 100 CPC, the second appeal was not maintainable, and the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.