State in which court a suit may be filed for recovery of rent of the immovable property.

Question: State in which court a suit may be filed for recovery of rent of the immovable property.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [State in which court a suit may be filed for recovery of rent of the immovable property.]

Answer

This problem is based on Section 20 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 20 states that –

Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.

Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c)The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

The relevant part of Section 20 on which this problem is based speaks when the case does not fall under Section 16 to 19 (the case is covered by section 20) then suit by the plaintiff may be instituted either in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction defendant resides/carries on business/personally works for gain or in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction cause of action wholly or partly arises.

Therefore, in terms of the provision made in Section 20, it can be said that in the given case the suit may be filed in the place where the defendant resides or where the cause of action arose. It is notable that the given case will not be governed by Section 16 because provisions of Section 16 can be invoked only when the suit is for the recovery of immovable property or for the determination of any other right or interest in immovable property. In this present case, the suit is for recovery of rent only and not for recovery of immovable property or for the determination of any other right or interest in immovable property.

In the landmark case of Allahabad High Court in Hardyal Singh v. Ram Ujagar Dam, 1954 ALJ 742, it was held that a suit merely for recovery of rent from a lease of immovable property cannot be said to be a suit “for the determination of any other right or interest immovable property”, under clause (d) of and therefore is not covered by Section 16, CPC.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – I of X
2. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – II of X
3. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – III of X
4. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IV of X
5. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – V of X
6. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VI of X
7. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VII of
8. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VIII of X
9. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IX of X
10. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – X of X