The court fee to be paid on a plaint seeking an injunction is the value of the property in question.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises in the following circumstances. The appellant who was a plaintiff in the Court of first instance, instituted asuit for mandatory injuction directing the defendants to vacate the property in question or in the alternative; for their ejectment from the above property and for a decree for Rs. 590. 00 on account of licence-fee, rent and damages for use and occupation. Value for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee was fixed in two counts. For relief of mandatory injuction directing the defendants to vacate the property, the value was fixed at Rs. 200. 00 For the purpose of ejectment, value was fixed at Rs. 240. 00 which was stated to be one year s rent.

( 2 ) IN the written statement, a number of preliminary objections were raised apart from the defence on the merits. The suit was pleaded not to be maintainable in the present form and value for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was also questioned. These preliminary pleas gave rise to two preliminary issues. On the question of maintainability of the suit in the present form, the decision was given in favour of the plaintiff. It was observed that a suit for mandatory injunction in the circumstances of the present case was maintainable. Reliance for this view was placed on Messrs. Delhi Gate Service Private Ltd. v. Messrs. Caltex {india) Ltd. . and P. N. Nandny v. N -. V. Nunday". On the question of valuation, however, the Court gave the decision against the plaintiff by relying on Sisir Kumar Dutta v Susil Kumar Dutta". according to which the suit has to be valued for purposes of court-fee in accordance with section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act. The plaint was in the circumstances returned to the plaintiff for proper amendment.

( 3 ) THE second appeal in this Court was dismissed in default on 2nd December, 1965 but was restored by me on 29th April, 1966 on payment of Rs. 50. 00 as costs which were paid and deposited in Court.

( 4 ) WHILE arguing the appeal on the merits, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of P. N. Nanday" and has tried to distinguish the later Full Bench decision of that Court in the case of Sisir Kumar Dutta. Further support has been sought by him from a Bench decision of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Th. Milka Singh v. Th. Diana and others. The counsel has in addition made a reference to Jagat Singh v. Districtb ad,amritsaift,iot the purpose of developing his contention that an allottee under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act is merely a licensee. Adecision by Tek Chand, J. in Pooran Chand v. Malik Mukhbain Singh, has been relied upon for drawing a distinction between a lease and a licence and for the proposition that a suit for permanent injunction can be instituted against a licensee who refuses to leave the premises after the termination of the agreement. For the same purpose, reference has been made to another Single Bench decision by Falshaw, C. J. in the case of Messrs. Delhi Gate Service Private Ltd. In both these cases, the Calcutta decision in the case of P. N. Nanday" was approvingly referred. Passing reference has also been made to a Bench decision of this Court in Thakar Das Labhu Ram v. The Custodian, Evacuee Property", in which it is laid down that if the Custodian of Evacuee Property cancels an allotment under section 10 of the East Punjab Evacuee Property (Administration) Ordinance (IX of 1949), the allottee has no remedy. The basis of this view was that an allottee had a mere licence which could be revoked at any time. A. S. Bhasin v. Custodian Evacuee Property, a decision by J. L. Kapur, J. also appears to have taken the view that an allottee has no remedy when the allotment is cancelled because an allottee is a mere licensee. Of course, Kapur, J. followed the earlier Bench decision. My attention has also been drawn to a Supreme Court decision in Amar Singh v. Custodian Evacuee Property, according to which the sum total