ORDER : The only point involved in this revision application is one about the court-fees. The Civil Judge, City Indore, decided the preliminary point with regard to court-fees and held that the court-fees should be paid according to Section 4, Clause (V) (f) i.e., where the subject-matter is a house or garden, the market value of the house or garden. 2. Shortly stated the facts are that the plaintiff Martandrao sued his wife Tarabai for declaration and possession of a portion of a house, No. 77, Ada Bazar, Indore City. The plaintiff alleged that he had allowed his wife to reside in the upper portion of the Ada Bazar house and he was not on good terms with her. The plaintiff had gone to Niphad in Nasik District and he had married second wife and he has got two sons and a daughter. He wants to return to Indore and he wants the entire house for his own use and hence this suit for declaration and possession. The plaintiff paid only court-fees of Rs. 37-8-0 being yearly rent of the portion in occupation of the defendant. The trial Court held that the plaintiff has to pay court-fees on the market value of the portion in possession of the defendant according to S. 7, Cl. (V)(f), Court-fees Act. 3. Mr. Pande for the applicant contended that the court-fee should be paid not on the market value of the house but on the rental value of the house in possession of the defendant. In my opinion there is absolutely no substance in this revision application. The question is whether in a suit for possession of a house where the plaintiff claims that the defendant in possession is his licensee, the court-fee is payable according to the market value of the house. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court decided (Vide 'RATILAL v. CHANDULAL', AIR 1947 Bom 482), that where in a suit for possession of a house the plaintiff claims that the defendant in possession is his licensee the court-fee is payable under Sec. 7 (v) (e) according to the market value of the house. The ruling in 'BARKATUNNISA BEGUM MT. v. MT. KANIZA FATMA', AIR 1927 Pat 140 was particularly dissented from. The ruling in 'BARKATUNNISA BEGUM MT. v. MT. KANIZA FATMA', AIR 1927 Pat 140 was particularly dissented from. The Patna High Court held that where the subject-matter of the suit is a right to eject the defendant the value of that right is the value at which the defendant's right to remain in the house under the license of the plaintiff may be valued. I prefer to follow the Bombay view and I also do not understand how the right of a licensee to remain in a house is to be valued. The distinction made between an ordinary suit in ejectment based on title and a suit in ejectment based on licence for the purposes of Section 7 (v), Court-fees Act, is really a distinction of substance. The same point is discussed in 'SATISH KUMAR v. SAILABASINI DEVI', AIR 1949 Cal 621, where it is held that where a person claims possession of certain premises from a licensee whose licence has been revoked the suit is clearly for recovery of possession and the valuation for purposes of court-fee is governed by Section 7 (V). The plaintiff is (not?) entitled to put his own valuation on the suit. 4. For the reasons aforesaid I reject the revision application with costs. Pleaders' fee Rs. 15/-. Revision application dismissed.