- (1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order of the revisional court dated 2.5.2011 by which the trial court has been directed to decide the question of valuation of the suit and the court fee. THE suit was filed by the defendant-petitioner for eviction. THE ground taken was that the petitioner was inducted in the property by way of lease of 30 years, which expired in the year 1998 and thereafter the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant. THE initial rent charged was Rs. 343/- and after the expiry of lease the property could fetch Rs. six thousand and odd as rent and, therefore, the valuation of the suit was determined by the respondent-plaintiff upon the amount of Rs. six thousand and odd and accordingly the court fee was also paid.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that no concluisive finding can be given by the appellate court to the trial court to decide a particular issue in a particular manner. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submits that the revision itself was not maintainable in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 289 and also in the case of Satya Narain Parashar Vs. III Additional District Judge, Etah and others, reported in 1981 AWC 235. I have considered the submissions and have perused the record. As regards the question regarding the valuation of suit and the court fee, the revisional court has held that paying the higher court fee would not be of any adverse consequence upon the defendant-petitioner in the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the amount is to be taken as Rs. six thousand and odd, as mentioned by the plaintiff, then he would be entitled to pay that rent in case the suit is decreed against the defendant. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner is misplaced. The amount of rent that the property would fetch today is the question of fact to be decided by the trial court. Merely by paying the court fee treating Rs. six thousand and odd to be the rent would not mean that the petitioner would be liable to pay the aforesaid rent. Accordingly, in my view, there is no injury to the petitioner by the aforesaid decision. The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.;