- (1.) RAJESH Tandon, J. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 1. 3. 2002 passed by respondent no. 2 in Civil Revision No. 60 of 2001. .
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the petitioner has filed a suit under Section 6 of the Spe cific Relief Act praying for the posses sion of the premises claiming for a de cree of dispossession of the defendant on the ground that he was in posses sion from 1. 2. 1999 @ Rs. 600/- per month and he has been wrongly dis possessed. The property in dispute has been sold by Akhtar Jahan to the de fendant on 23. 8. 1999. A written statement has been filed by the defendant where the plaint averments have been denied. It was de nied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the par ties. On the basis of the written state ment issue No. 4 was framed as to whether the court fee paid in the suit is sufficient or not. In para 20 of the written statement the defendant has raised the following plea : Hindi 4. The trial court has recorded the finding in favour of the plaintiff hold ing that the court fee paid is sufficient as the suit has been filed on the ground of relationship of landlord and tenant. The defendant has preferred a revision. The revisional court has recorded a finding that since it is a suit under Sec tion 6 of the Specific Relief Act, and there appears to be no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plain tiff and the defendant, the valuation has to be made in accordance with the market value of the property. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has referred Section 7 (xi) of the Court Fees Act. It reads as under : "7 (xi) In the following suits between landlord and tenant- (a) for the delivery by a tenant of the counterpart of a lease; (b) to enhance the rent of a tenant having a right of occupancy; (c) for the delivery by a landlord of a lease; (cc) for the recovery of immovable property from a tenant including a tenant holding over after the determination of a tenancy; (d) to contest a notice of ejectment; (e) to recover the occupancy of im movable property from which a tenant has been illegally ejected by the landlord; (f) for abatement of rent; (g) for determination of rent; and (h) for determination of rent-according to the amount of the rent of immovable property to which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint, except in the case of suits falling under clause (h) in which according to twice the amount claimed by the plaintiffs to be the annual rent. " 6. As will appear that Section 7 (xi) relates to the suits simpliciter where the landlord files a suit against the tenant for the delivery of possession by a ten ant. However, the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief act is not covered. The landlord in his written" statement has disputed that the 4 plaintiff was a tenant and, as such, unless the plain tiff is able to prove that he was a ten ant at any point of time the plaintiff can not be permitted to save from the clutches of the court fees and he has to pay according to the valuation of the property. 7. The revisional court has re corded a finding that original receipt has not been filed with regard" to the tenancy rights of the plaintiff and, as such, the relationship of landlord and tenant can not be proved by any means and, as such, the suit does not fall un der Section 7 (xi) of the Court Fees Act. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as Rs. 60,000/-valuation is concerned, the court has not adjudicated upon the question as to whether the valuation is Rs. 60,000/ - or any other valuation. A copy of the sale deed of October, 1999 showing the valuation of Rs. 80,000/- is on record. The suit has been filed in the year 2000. The petitioner has not given any other evidence to disprove the valua tion given by the defendant and, as such, since the petitioner has not led any other evidence that the valuation is lesser than Rs. 60. 000/- the valuation given by the defendant, therefore, has taken to be true. 9. The petitioner has referred the judgment reported in AIR. 2002 Su preme Court 233 Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh versus Paras Nath Singh and oth ers where it has been observed by the Apex Court that the court fee has to be paid on the plaint as framed and not on the plaint as it ought to have been framed. The observations are quoted below : "it is well settled that the court fee has to be paid on the plaint as framed and not on the plaint as it ought to have been framed unless by astuteness employed in drafting the plaint the plaintiff has attempted at evading payment of court fee or unless there be a provision of law re quiring the plaintiff to value the suit and pay the court fee in a manner other than the one adopted by the plaintiff. " 10. The Apex Court in the afore said observations has pointed out that the averements made in the plaint has taken to be true unless there is a pro vision of law requiring the plaintiff to value the suit and pay the court fee in a manner other than the one adopted by the plaintiff. In the present case in the written statement the defendant has pointed out that since it is not a suit between the landlord and tenant and, therefore, the value of the suit has been wrongly given by the plaintiff on the basis of the landlord and tenant rela tionship and, therefore, the Apex Court has rightly pointed out that unless there is a provision of law requiring the plain tiff to value the suit and pay the court fee in a manner other than the one adopted by the plaintiff and, as such, the defendant having pointed out that the suit does not fall under Section 7 (xi) of the Court Fees Act, therefore, the revisional court has rightly passed the order directing the plaintiff to pay the court fees on the basis of valuation and not on the basis of Section 7 (xi) of the Court Fees Act. 11. In view of aforesaid findings I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the revisional court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 12. However, it is made clear that in case, the court comes to the conclu sion that there has been a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and further the plaintiff has been illegally ousted from the premises and further the plain tiff has been paying the rent @ Rs. 600/ - per month to the defendant, the plain tiff will be entitled for the refund of the court fees paid by him. 13. The writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is liable to be dis missed. 14. Writ petition is dismissed. .;