A licensor is entitled to a mandatory injunction if they approach the court within a reasonable time after the license is terminated. If there is a delay, the suit may have to be valued under Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act.

Arun Mishra, J.

1. In the instant writ petition order dated 10-7-07 has been assailed which has been passed by Addl. District Judge, Burhanpur in C.S. No. 23-A/07. Application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC has been considered by the Trial Court. Trial Court has ordered as possession has been sought from the licensee after termination of the licence, it would be necessary to make the valuation of the property on the market rate and make the payment of Court fees accordingly. Final order under Order 7 Rule 11(b), CPC has not been passed. Plaintiff has assailed the aforesaid interlocutory order in the instant writ petition.

2. Facts in short giving rise to the instant writ petition are that plaintiff has filed the suit for mandatory injunction valuing it at Rs. 52,000/-. It has been averred that the defendants were not having any right, title or interest in the house with effect from 31-1-1917. There is pleading with respect to C.S. No. 6-A/49 in which a compromise decree was passed on 17-4-1961. The defendants were in occupation as licensee. They were asked to handover the vacant possession, but it was not handed over, ultimately the licence was terminated on 31-8-05 and defendants were required to vacate the accommodation. It is further submitted that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had prayed 10 months' time to deliver vacant possession, but they failed to handover the vacant possession, ultimately registered notice was served on 2-4-07 to revoke the licence and to handover the vacant possession by 30th April, 2007, suit was filed on 19-5-07.

3. An application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPCwas filed by defendants to direct valuation to be made at Rs. 25,32,170/- and to make payment of Court fees of Rs. 2,32,373/-, application has been allowed by the impugned order, aggrieved thereby writ petition has been preferred.

4. Shri I. Hussain, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that licensee is required to surrender the possession in case suit has been filed expeditiously after revocation of licence, in such circumstances the plaintiff is free to value the suit under Section 7(iv)(d) of Court Fees Act. Provision of Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act is not applicable which requires ad valorem Court fees to be paid in case there is more than reasonable lapse of time in filing of the suit after revocation of the licence. In the instant case, licence was revoked on 2-4-07 with effect from 30th April, 2007 and thereafter suit was filed on 19-5-07. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh AIR 1985 SC 857, Th. Milka Singh and Ors. v. Th. Diana and Ors. AIR 1964 J&K 99, Minister of Health v. Bellotti All England Law Reports 238, Sardar Paramjeet Singh and Ors. v. Prabhat Kumar Shrivastava and Anr. 1996 MPLJ 339, Ayissa Umma v. Ami 1990 (1) KLT 98 and Smt. Saraswati @ Jaya Bichpuria v. Smt. Archana Bichpuria 2007 (4) M.P.H.T. 131.

5. On the other hand, Shri Avinash Jargar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents has placed reliance on a decision in Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Gokulchand Pande AIR 1956 Madhya Bharat 47.

6. The decision of Apex Court in Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh (supra), is clear in this regard in which the Apex Court has laid down thus:

6. Now the parties are bound by the following factual findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge in the first appeal, namely:-- (1) that the appellant who had become the sole proprietor of M/s. Jain Motors in 1967 though at the time of the lease of the property by the original owner Lt. Col. Sadan Singh to M/s. Jain Motors in 1963 he was only one of its partners, was the lessee of the property; (2) that the respondent had become a licensee of the suit shed under the appellant when the appellant was in possession of the whole of the demised premises, including the suit shed as tenant under the original owner; (3) that the licence in favour of the respondent had been revoked before the institution of the present