( 1 ) PETITIONER, a tenant of certain premises, granted license to respondent on commission basis. Later on, he revoked it. When respondent failed to give possession, he sued him for mandatory injunction paying Court fees of Rs. 3. Respondent objected that suit is really for possession and petitioner should pay Court fees on market value. Petitioner filed revision. Paras 3 to 5 of judgement are :

( 2 ) THE law on the subject is well settled. Under Section 7 (iv) (d) of the Court Fees Act in a suit to obtain injunction, discretion is given to the plaintiff to value the relief and pay the court fees accordingly and a local amendment made in the law has provided that the court fees paid in such a suit shall be not less than Rs. 13. On the other hand, in suits for possession of land and houses, the court fee is to be paid on the market value as provided in sub-clause (c) of clause (v) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act. In Sathapana Chettiar v. Ramanathan, AIR 1958 SC 245, the Supreme Court laid down that the question of court fees must be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint and this decision cannot be influenced either by the pleas in the written st