In a suit for possession of immovable property, the court fee shall be computed on the market value of the property.

S. K. MAL LODHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision by the plaintiff-petitioner is directed against the order of Munsif-City, Jodhpur, dated May 3, 1974 by which he decided issue No. 5 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant and directed him to pay ad valorem court-fee on the market value of the house in dispute.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff and defendant are father and son respectively. The plaintiff instituted a suit in the Court of Munsif City, Jodhpur on Aug. 28, 1969 stating that he owns a house near Hanu-man-ji-ki-Bhakri, Jodhpur, described in para 1 of the plaint, that the defendant, with his family, started living in that house with his, permission as licensee, that when the relations between the parties became strained, he served a notice dated Aug. 22, 1967 through his counsel, asking the defendant, to vacate the house within 15 days and that that notice was delivered to him on Aug. 24, 1967. He further stated that after the expiry of 15 days, the licence stood revoked. It was also stated that in the reply to that notice, the defendant raised certain irrelevant and baseless objections. hp further stated that the defendant had started making alterations in the house and has fixed stone slabs (cheens) in the chowk without the permission of the plaintiff on July 18, 1969. It was prayed in the plaint that mandatory injunction may be issued against the defendant, directing him to vacate the house, described in para i of the plaint and further that he should be directed to restore status quo ante in regard to it.

( 3 ) THE contention of the defendant was that the plaintiff valued the suit for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction under Section 26 of the Rajasthan Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (the Act hereafter) and fixed its value at rs. 400/-and submitted Court-fee stamp of Rs. 30/-with the plaint. The defendant resisted the suit and averred that at the time of institution of the suit, the market value of the house in dispute was not less than Rs. 20,000/ and that the suit of the plaintiff is for dispossession of the defendant and permanent injunction. He submitted that on the facts, stated by the plaintiff, he should pay Court-fee on 1/2 of the market value of the house in accordance with Section 26 (a) of tbe Act. It was also stated that from this point of view, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit, It was further pleaded that the plaintiff has prayed for possession of the house by dispossessing defendant and therefore he should pay ad valorem Court-fee as provided in Section 29 of the Act The trial Court framed issue No. 5 on the basis of these averments, in the pleading. Issue No. 5 when translated into English, reads as under: "the plaintiff has not correctly valued the suit, and as such, the court-fee paid by him is not sufficient. " the learned Munsif decided this issue in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff and directed that the plaintiff should pay ad valorem Court-fee on market value of the house in dispute.

( 4 ) BEING dissatisfied with the order of the learned Munsif dated May 3, 1974, plaintiff has come up in revision as aforesaid.

( 5 ) MR. K. Murari, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that even after the revocation of the licence, the defendant would not be treated as trespasser and that after the termination of the licence when the licensee continues to occupy the house in respect of which the licence was granted and revoked the possession of the house, would be deemed to be in the licensor through the licensee and, therefore, on the basis of these premises, it was urged that after the termination of licence, the licensee was under an obligation to surrender possession of the house in dispute to the licensor and if he had failed to do so, the licensee can be compelled to discharge such an obligation by a mandatory injunction under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. In this connection he placed strong reliance on Th. Milka Singh v. Th. Diana,