Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—This FAFO has been filed by the plaintiff-appellants challenging the order dated 7.5.2014 passed by the trial Court directing to pay the ad-valorem Court fees.

2. Heard Shri Diwakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri K. Shailendra for the respondents.

3. Undisputed facts are that suit property, which is in the nature of the shop was purchased by one Premwati, the mother of the appellant No. 1 and defendant-respondent by means of two sale-deeds dated 11.1.1969 and 29.5.1974. The shop was given to the defendant-respondent by Smt. Premwati on licence for running a business. Subsequently, the suit property was transferred in favour of plaintiff-appellants by means of registered sale-deed dated 9.12.2009. After purchase of the property by the plaintiff-appellants, a legal notice dated 26.3.2010 was served upon the defendant-respondent to handover possession of the same. Thereafter, he filed a suit claiming mandatory injunction for possession. A decree for damages was also claimed. Suit was filed on the allegations that Smt. Premwati, the erstwhile owner transferred the suit property in favour of the plaintiff-appellants by means of a registered sale-deed. The licence of defendant-respondent, who was in possession as licensee of Smt. Premwati, was revoked by means of a notice dated 26.3.2010 by the plaintiff-appellants. Proceedings were contested by the defendant-respondent by filing a written statement denying the plaint allegations.

4. One of the issues framed by the trial Court was whether the suit is undervalued and the Court fees was sufficient. It was held that suit was properly valued, but Court fees of Rs. 500/- was insufficient and the plaintiff-appellants were required to pay ad-valorem Court fees.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that after execution of the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff-appellants, they stepped into the shoes of Smt. Premwati and, thus, were the licensors and in a suit for possession, the Court fees paid under Section 7 (iv-B) (b) of the Court Fees Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was sufficient and the trial Court wrongly and erroneously held that ad-valorem Court fees under Section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act was payable.

6. In reply, it has been contended that after execution of the sale-deed by Smt. Premwati in favour of the plaintiff-appellants, his licence came to an end and it was a suit for possession, hence, ad-valorem Court fees was payable.

7. The moot question which arises for consideration is, in the facts and circumstances, whether the Court fees is payable by the plaintiff-appellants under Section 7 (iv-B) (b) or ad-valorem Court fees under Section 7 (v) is liable to be paid.

8. It is an admitted case between the parties that defendant-respondent was a licensee of Smt. Premwati, the erstwhile owner since before the transfer of the property by her in favour of the plaintiff-appellants.

9. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh, AIR 1985 SC 857.

10. In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that after termination of the license, the licensee is under an obligation to surrender the possession to the owner and if he fails to do so, the licensee can be compelled to discharge its obligation by way of mandatory injunction under Section 55 of the Special Relief Act, subject to the condition that suit is brought within a reasonable time.

11. The law on this point has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following terms.

“After the termination of the licence, the licensee is under a clear obligation to surrender his possession to the owner and if he fails to do so, we do not see any reason why the licensee cannot be compelled to discharge this obligation by way of a mandatory injunction under Section 55 of the Specific Relief Act. We might further mention that e