( 1 ) THE petitioner instituted a suit for possession of a shop 5039, Dina Nath Building, Pahargunj Delhi and for Rs. 2,410. 20 on account of arrears of rent. The claim in the suit was that late Babu Ram was the tenant whose tenancy had been terminated during his life time. Now possession and arrears of rent and damages were claimed from the heirs and L. R s of said Babu Ram. Value for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction was fixed at Rs 1000. 00 for relief of possession.

( 2 ) DEFENDANTS 3 and 4 claimed that the suit was not properly valued. This led to the framing of the issue whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court free and jurisdiction.

( 3 ) THE contention of the plaintiff was that the suit fell within S. 7 (xi) (cc) of Court fees Act, but defendants urged that the suit had to be valued U/s 7 (v) and thus court fee had to be paid on market value of the property. Trial court held that S. 7 (xi) applied only in a suit between a landlord and tenant holding over and thus court fee was payable on the market value. Plaintiff then filed the revision.

( 4 ) THE question which has arisen before the Court is one which has very often been urged in the past