Prem Chand Jain, J. - (1.) GULZARI Lai, Petitioner and anther fled a suit for possession by redemption of one two store} ed house situate in Mohalla Rai Silla, Ambala City, on payment of Rs. 4,000/ -. The moorages did not contest the claim of the Plaintiffs. The suit was contested by Vijay Kumar, Defendant No. 6, on the plea that his father was a tenant of the property under the mortgagors, that he would also be deemed to be a tenant under the mortgagors and that he is liable to be evaded only under the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Eviction Act).
(2.) ON the pleadings of the parties several issues were framed. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence available on the rile, decreed the claim of the Plaintiffs for redemption on payment of Rs. 4,000/ - against Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, but declined the relief against Defendant No. 6 on the basis of the finding that he (Defendant No. 6) had been a tenant under the mortgagors and that he could be ejected only under he provisions of the Eviction Act. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the learned subordinate Judge to the extent of the relief refused against Defendant No. 6, the Plaintiffs preferred an appeal. At the time of the hearing of the appeal before the learned District Judge, Ambala, one of the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the contesting Defendant was that the memorandum of appeal was not properly valued for the purposes of Court -fee. This preliminary objection was sustained and the learned District Jude held that ad valorem court -fee on the market value of the property in dispute was payable in terms of Section 7(v)(e) of the Court Fees Act, 1871 (hereinafter called the Act). In view of this finding, the Petitioners directed to make good the deficiency in the Court fee.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved from the aforesaid order of the learned District Judge, the present revision petition has been filed, which came up for hearing before me on April, 15, 1980. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at great length. I found that the point involved in the petition was of considerable importance and deserved to be settled by a larger Bench. Consequently, I decided to refer the petition for decision to a larger Bench and that is how was are seized of the matter.;