In the absence of an objective standard for valuation of the relief sought, the plaintiff is entitled to value the suit under S. 7 (vi) (b) (ii) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970, and the court has no power to revise the valuation under S. 11 of the Act.

( 1 ) THIS application for a Rule under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on being moved against order No. 40-dated 9th September, 1983, made in Title Suit No. 315 of 1981, by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Howrah, was opposed by Mr. Mukherjee, who appeared for the caveator opposite party. By such order, the exception as taken by the defendant / petitioner on valuation and court fees, were negatived.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff/opposite party brought the concerned Title Suit No. 315 of 1981 praying for (1) a decree of eviction of the defendant/petitioner from the suit property, (2) costs of the said property and (3) any other relief or relief's to which he would be entitled in law and equity. It has been claimed by the defendant/petitioner that the said suit was instituted on the incorrect allegations that he was a licensee in respect of the suit premises and the license was revoked by the plaintiff/opposite party In fact such stand as indicated above, was duly taken amongst others by the defendant/petitioner in his written statement and he further claimed to be a tenant in respect of a complete and duly separated flat consisting of two rooms, kitchen, bath, privy, verandah, courtyard, at a monthly rental of Rs. 150/-, payable according to English calendar month. It was further asserted that the suit premises, possession whereof was being claimed on eviction of the defendant / petitioner, would be worth not less than R. 30,000/- and as such, the concerned suit being a suit for possession, should have been valued at the amount. But, the plaintiff/opposite party wrongfully valued the suit at Rs. 25/- only on the allegation that for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued at Rs. 25/- under S. 7 (vi) (b) (ii) of the Court fees Act.

( 3 ) IT was the categorical claim of the defendant / petitioner that the value of the premises can by no standard be such a paltry sum of Rs. 25/- and he duly challenged the valuation as made through a petition dated 10th August, 1983 and prayed for a decision on such valuation, first. That application was opposed by the plaintiff / opposite party and the learned Munsif disposed of the application by the order as impeached, holding, inter alia, amongst others that the plaintiff / opposite party paid the court fees duly, on the basis of his pleadings and the relief's as claimed. The learned Court was further of the view that the suit was properly valued and Court fees as paid, was sufficient, apart from holding, that he had jurisdiction to try the suit.

( 4 ) IN fact, it was claimed and contended by Mr. Roy, appearing in support of the application, that the learned Munsif was wrong in holding that the plaintiff/opposite party was entitled and justified in valuing the suit at Rs. 25/- under S. 7 (vi) (b) (ii) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970, which deals with computation of fees payable and more particularly in a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property from a licensee upon revocation or termination of his licence, according to the amount at which the relief sought is required to be valued subject to the provisions of S. 11, where no such license fee is payable by the licensee. Mr. Roy also claimed that without making an enquiry under the said S. 11 and without finding out the value of the premises objectively the impugned order should not have been made or passed. It was contended further that on application of the objective standard of valuation of the premises and the relief as actually claimed or the accommodation, as available to the defendant/petitioner and from which he was sought to be evicted, the suit was improperly valued at Rs. 25/ -. Section 11 as mentioned above lays down that if the Court is of opinion that the subject matter of any suit has been wrongly valued, it may revise the valuation and determine the correct valuation and may hold such enquiry as it thinks fit for such purpose. As indicated earlier, according to Mr. Roy, the sui