( 1 ) THIS is a reference to a Special Division Bench, under the second proviso to Rule 1 Ch. II of the High Court Appellate Side Rules. The particular question of law referred for determination by the Special Bench is:"what is the proper valuation of a suit for ejectment of a licensee upon revocation or termination of his licence for purposes of (1) Court-fees and (2) jurisdiction? Is there any difference in the matter between a case of revocation of licence and a case of termination as distinguished from revocation of licence?"

( 2 ) FACTS, in so far as they are material for determination of this reference, lie within a short compass and are hereinbelow stated.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs, who are the petitioners, filed a suit for eviction of the defendant opposite party, whom they described as a licensee, on the ground that the licence in favour of the defendant had been revoked. There were also certain other reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs, for example, mesne profits, but with those other reliefs I am not concerned at this stage. The relief, in so far as ejectment was concerned, was valued at Rs. 100/-, which according to the plaintiffs was the value of the said relief, and Court-fee was paid accordingly.

( 4 ) THE defendant in his written statement objected to the valuation of the relief as to ejectment and also objected to the Court-fee paid thereon. He contended that the suit had not been properly valued and the Court-fee paid was insufficient.

( 5 ) ON the pleadings, an issue, amongst others, as to valuation of the suit, for the purposes of the Court-fees, was framed.

( 6 ) THE learned Munsif heard the issue as a preliminary Issue, in the suit, and decided against the plaintiff. An extract from the order of the learned Munsif is set out below:"in view of the decision reported in Satish Kumar v. Sailabasini Devi, AIR 1949 Cal 621, the valuation for the purpose of Court-fees in such a suit is governed by Section 7 (v) of the Court-fees Act and the plaintiff is not entitled to put his own valuation on the suit. Relying on a case reported in Chandi Charan Das v. Sushilabala Dasi, the learned lawyer for the plaintiff argues that the subject-matter of the suit is not the properties in respect of which the plaintiff claims relief but the relief itself.

This would appear from the above decision itself, and in the above case their Lordships were concerned with the valuation of the suit only for the purpose of jurisdiction and not for the purpose of Court-fees. That apart, the above decision did not disturb the previous decision or valuation for the purpose of Court-fees and that decision was not overlooked. The learned lawyer for the plaintiff has also referred to a case reported in Prabirendra Nath v. Narendra Nath, out this does not relate to Court fees matter. He has next urged that that valuation of the suit property cannot be ascertained in this case as the plaintiff has a very limited interest of tenancy therein. This contention has some legs to stand upon, but I find from the plaint itself that licence fee of Rs. 40/- p. m. was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and on this basis I value the suit property at Rs. 7200/- under Section 7 (v) of the Court-fees Act. "so far as the valuation of the suit at Rs. 100/-, for the purposes of jurisdiction, was concerned the learned Munsif, apparently did not disturb the valuation. Aggrieved by the order the plaintiff moved this Court.

( 7 ) P. N. Mookerjee and Niyogi, JJ. , who recommended the reference to a Special Division Bench, made the following observation:"this has resulted in a very unsatisfactory state of things and the position has become somewhat anomalous, the suit, so far as ejectment is concerned being valued at Rs. 100/- for the purpose of jurisdiction and at Rs. 7200/- for the purpose of Court-fees. "

( 8 ) THEIR Lordships further observed that in view of several unalike decisions and the chaotic state of the law,