1. - This revision application arises out of the order passed by the Learned Munsif Jodhpur (City) dated January 16, 1982 rejecting an application of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for fixation of standard rent with the allegation that the agreed rent was Rs. 475/- per month, but the standard rent of the premises was Rs. 100/- per month only and the Court should fix standard rent accordingly. In the plaint the plaintiff failed to give any valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction as well for payment of court-fees, but the court-fees of Rs. 10/- was paid on the plaint.

3. The plaintiff submitted an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC praying that he may be allowed to add a paragraph valuing the plaint at Rs. 1,000/- for purposes of jurisdiction as also for payment of court-fees. The application was rejected by the trial Court on two grounds; firstly that there was no basis for valuing the suit at Rs. 1,000/- and secondly that in view of the provisions of Section 7 of the Rajasthan Court Fees Act and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') the value of the suit should have been fixed at the amount at which rent was paid during the previous year, that is Rs. 5,700/- in the instant case and that court-fees should have been paid in accordance therewith, but as the suit of the valuation of Rs. 5,700/- would have been out side the jurisdiction of the Court of Learned Munsif, he was unable to allow the amendment prayed for.

4. The question which was argued by learned counsel before this Court was as to whether Section 41 or Section 45 of the Act applied to the case. Obviously, Section 41 applies to suits between landlord and tenant, for the reliefs specified therein, which includes a suit for enhancement of rent. But a suit for reduction of rent is not included in Section 41. As such Section 41 of the Act is not applicable to a suit where the agreed rent is claimed to be excessive and the tenant prays for fixation of standard rent at a lesser amount than the agreed rate. As there is no other provision in the Act Section 45, which is a residuary provision, will be applicable to a suit of the nature in dispute. Section 45, provides that court-fees shall be payable at the rates specified therein. "on the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute." Learned counsel for the defendants-opposite parties submits that the amount or the value of the subject-matter in dispute should be determined according to Section 7, which applies to Section 45 of the Act and that was probably argued before the learned Munsif and also appealed to him. However, a bare reading of Section 7 shows that it is applicable to those cases where the court-fees payable under the Act (sic) "The market value" of any property. However, Section 45 does not speak of "the Market value of the property" but it speaks of "the amount of the value of the subject-matter in dispute."

5. Now in a suit for reduction in rent the subject-matter in dispute is the amount of difference in the yearly rate of rent which is paid by the plaintiff and the yearly rent claimed as standard rent. In the present case, yearly rent of the premises is Rs. 5,700/- at the agreed rate of Rs. 475/- per month, what the plaintiff desires is that the standard rent should be fixed at Rs. 1,200/- per year at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. Thus, the reduction in rent, which is desired by the plaintiff in the suit, is Rs. 4,500/- per year and truly speaking, the said amount would represent the value of the subject-matter in dispute in the suit, for the purposes of Section 45 of the Act.

6. In my view, the plaintiff had no justification for asking that the suit be valued at Rs. 1,000/- as the law does not permit the plaintiff to put any arbitrary valuation according to his whims, the trial Court was justified in refusing the amendment prayed for. However, if the plaintiff submits