( 1 ) THE petitioner is the City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore. These revision petitions are filed against the orders of the Additional Civil Judge, mysore, in LAC. Nos. 10 of 1969, 78 of 1971, 87 of 1970 and 203 of 1971 respectively, holding that the petitioner is entitled to the leave of the Court to terminate the appointment of the Respondent as its Counsel subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits Rs. 500 for payment to the respondent within three weeks in each of these cases. The facts are similar and the point involved is common. Hence, they are disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) THE respondent is the Advocate who has been engaged by the petitioner to appear in some Land Acquisition Cases on its behalf. It is stated that the respondent had been appointed as the Legal Adviser of the petitioner in the year 1969 for one year. The term was extended by two years and it expired on 31-1-1972. According to the Resolution dt. 24-2-1972 of the Board of Trustees of the petitioner, the respondent was appointed as their Legal Adviser for a further period of two years with effect from 1-7-1972. The intimation sent to the respondent states that his claim for legal services rendered will be according to the G. O. No. LAW 64/lag 60 dt. 1-8-1960 read with G. O. No. PLM. 5/gcb 62 dt. 20-2-1963. The special Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore, engaged the respondent in the Land Acquisition Cases and the respondent has filed into Court the Vakalat on his behalf. The Board of Trustees or the petitioner, by Resolution dt. 23-5-1973, terminated the services of the respondent a,s the Legal Adviser with immediate effect and appointed Sri n. S. Veerabhadriah, Advocate, Mysore as Additional Advocate of the petitioner. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust board, Mysore, filed memos in the Land Acquisition Caces to the effect that the respondent is no longer the Legal Adviser of the petitioner with effect from 26th May, 1973 and that Sri N. S. Veerabhadriah has been appointed as the Additional Advocate of the petitioner to appear in these cases on behalf of the petitioner. Sri N. S. Veerabha,dra,iah, thereafter filed vakalats on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The respondent filed a memo stating that he has no objection to retire provided his full fee is paid by the petitioner. To this memo, the petitioner has filed objections In the objection statement it is stated by the petitioner that the respondent is not entitled to the full fee as the case is still pending before the Court, that the bills of the respondent for the payment of his fee will be considered by the petitioner according to the Government Order, and that therefore the memo filed by the repondent may be rejected and he may be directed to retire from the cases.

( 3 ) FOLLOWING the decision of this Court in the Commr. , MHRC and E. Act v. Ratnavarma Hegde, (1964) 2 Mys. L. J. 365, the lower Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the leave of the Court for determining the Vakalat only after it makes payment of the full fees to which the respondent is entitled under the contract. Since under the terms of the G. Os. referred to in the communication sent to the respondent by the petitioner the full fee payable in each of these cases is Rs. 500, the lower Court held that the petitioner should deposit the sum of Rs. 500 in each of these cases before leave could be granted by the Court to terminate the appointment of the respondent.

( 4 ) THE Government Order No,. LAW 64/lag 60 dt. 1-8-60 stages that the fees in the Land Acqusition Cases should be calculated at the rates prescribed thereunder subject to the maximum of Rs. 500 per case and where several cases are clubbed, together, the fee payable to the Counsel shall be full fee in the case in which evidence is recorded and 1/4th of the Schedule fees in other cases subject to the total maximum of Rs. 1,000. It is not disputed on behalf of the petition