I. D. Dua, C. J. , Jagjit Singh, J. ( 1 ) THIS appli- cation for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court had been dismis- sed f (r default in appearance by us on 10th July, 1967, but was restored on 14th July, 1967. ( 2 ) THE present application aiises out of a suit instituted bvmessrs Capri Ltd. , against five defendants, ths present petitioner Shri M. L. Dhawan being defendant Mo. I on the allegation that the defendant was employed by the plaintiff-company as Manager of its business and allow- ed to occupy room No. 9 in the second floor by virtue of his sevice as an employee of the plaintiff and that on the termination of his services on 31st July, 1952, he was no longer entitled to occupy room -No. 9. In regard to room) No. 12, it was aveired that defendant No. 1 had forcibly taken possession of this room. The suit was for possession of rooms Nos. 9 and -12 in the Regal Buildings, New Delhi and also for a decree for Rs. 1,600. 00 on account of damages for use and occupation of these two rooms. ( 3 ) THE written statement by defendants Nos, I to 3 put forth the plea, inter alia, that defendant J\o. I was in the service of the plaintiff for a short while, but aince the plaintiffs company's business was small, it let out the first floor to the Standard Restaulant and entered into an arrangement with defendant No. l in regard to the second floor of that building, whereby all the rooms on that floor, except rooms Nos. I and 2, already let out to Messrs New 'india and Messrs Standard Restaurant, were handed over and placed In the exclusive possession, control and management of defendant No. 1 as a lessee who agreed to pay a net sum of Rs. 500. 00 per month as rent of those rooms to the plaintiff with full authority to sublet those rooms on board and lodging basis or other- wise. ( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge. Shri Tilak Raj Handa, trying this case came to the conclusion that the defendant had n A been put in possesion of he premises in dispute in his capacity as Manager of the plaintiff-compeny and with this finding, he did not consider it necessary to decide the is. ( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge. Shri Tilak Raj Handa, trying this case came to the conclusion that the defendant had n A been put in possesion of he premises in dispute in his capacity as Manager of the plaintiff-compeny and with this finding, he did not consider it necessary to decide the is. ue of liability of defendant No. 1 to be ejected on a 'count of termination of his services. Issue No. 3, which is in the killowing words: "did defendant No. 1 take the premises in dispute besides some other rooms from the plaintiff as a managing contractor with a right to sublet the same or any portion thereof ? ( 5 ) IF so, what were the other terms of the contract ? was decided in the defendant's favour and the. plea of forcible entry by defendant No. 1 in room No. 12 was decided against the plaintiff. To be precise in regard to his conclusion on issue No. 3, he found that the possession of defendant No. 1 was under some agreement with the plaintiff and that agreement was an agreement of lease. It is unnecssary for our present purpose to refer to the other findings of the learned Subordinate Judge. ( 6 ) ON appeal in this Court, a Division Bench reversed the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge and in the couse of the. order observed thus :- "the case of the first defendant, therefore, must fail on the short ground that the lease which he set himself to prove in the written statement has not been established. The first defendant can have no other interest in the property in suit except as a lessee and if the tenancy is not proved he is no more than a tresspassser. It is not denied that notice of ejectment had been duly served and there really is no answer to the suit for possession brought by the pliantiff. "in so far as claim for damages is concerned, a decree for Rs. 1,500. 00 was awarded. ( 7 ) THE application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been presented by Shri M. L. Dhawan alone. "in so far as claim for damages is concerned, a decree for Rs. 1,500. 00 was awarded. ( 7 ) THE application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been presented by Shri M. L. Dhawan alone. In support of this application, Shri Raghbir Singh has primarily relied on the argument that theie amount or value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the Court of first instance and still in dispute on appeal is not less than Rs. 20,000. 00 and in the alternative that the impugned judgment and decree involve directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting property of the like amount or value. The appeal is thus claimed to be as of right. The learned counsel quite clearly stated that he was not claiming title to the property which is called the Regal Buildings, nor docs he assert title to rooms Nos. 9 and 12. His sole argument, as we can understand has been that the plaintiff had. filed a suit for possession of these two rooms which were asserted to be in possession of defendant No. 1 (petitioner in these proceedings), with the result that the suit must be held to involve indirectly some claim or question respecting property worth more than Rs. 20,000. 00. It is not denied that in the Court below, the parties had agreed by means of a statement that the market value of the site in dispute is Rs. 15,000. 00 and that the court fee may be assessed acording to this valuation. The learned counsel, Shri Raghbir Singh, however, argues that that was only an admission for the purpose of court-fee and that the real value can be asserted by him now to be more than Rs. 20,000. 00. We are unable to uphold this submission. It was a case in which some valuation for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction could be fixed. It is, therefore, not easy for us to permit the present petitioner (defendant No. 1) to assert higher valuation than was agreed to by him in the trial Court. The learned counsel has not shown the basis on which the value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the trail Court or on appeal can be determined to amount to Rs. 20,000. 00 or more. The appeal thus does not be as of right. The learned counsel has not shown the basis on which the value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the trail Court or on appeal can be determined to amount to Rs. 20,000. 00 or more. The appeal thus does not be as of right. ( 8 ) THE only other point, therefore, which calls for examination is if the present case can be considered to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court as required by Article 133 (l) (c) of the Constitution. On this point precious little has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and all that he has said is that section 53-A, Transfer of Property Act, applies to the case and therefore, he is entitled to a certificate I. D. Dua, C. J. , Jagjit Singh, J. ( 1 ) THIS appli- cation for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court had been dismis- sed f (r default in appearance by us on 10th July, 1967, but was restored on 14th July, 1967. ( 2 ) THE present application aiises out of a suit instituted bvmessrs Capri Ltd. , against five defendants, ths present petitioner Shri M. L. Dhawan being defendant Mo. I on the allegation that the defendant was employed by the plaintiff-company as Manager of its business and allow- ed to occupy room No. 9 in the second floor by virtue of his sevice as an employee of the plaintiff and that on the termination of his services on 31st July, 1952, he was no longer entitled to occupy room -No. 9. In regard to room) No. 12, it was aveired that defendant No. 1 had forcibly taken possession of this room. The suit was for possession of rooms Nos. 9 and -12 in the Regal Buildings, New Delhi and also for a decree for Rs. 1,600. 00 on account of damages for use and occupation of these two rooms. In regard to room) No. 12, it was aveired that defendant No. 1 had forcibly taken possession of this room. The suit was for possession of rooms Nos. 9 and -12 in the Regal Buildings, New Delhi and also for a decree for Rs. 1,600. 00 on account of damages for use and occupation of these two rooms. ( 3 ) THE written statement by defendants Nos, I to 3 put forth the plea, inter alia, that defendant J\o. I was in the service of the plaintiff for a short while, but aince the plaintiffs company s business was small, it let out the first floor to the Standard Restaulant and entered into an arrangement with defendant No. l in regard to the second floor of that building, whereby all the rooms on that floor, except rooms Nos. I and 2, already let out to Messrs New india and Messrs Standard Restaurant, were handed over and placed In the exclusive possession, control and management of defendant No. 1 as a lessee who agreed to pay a net sum of Rs. 500. 00 per month as rent of those rooms to the plaintiff with full authority to sublet those rooms on board and lodging basis or other- wise. ( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge. Shri Tilak Raj Handa, trying this case came to the conclusion that the defendant had n A been put in possesion of he premises in dispute in his capacity as Manager of the plaintiff-compeny and with this finding, he did not consider it necessary to decide the is. ue of liability of defendant No. 1 to be ejected on a count of termination of his services. Issue No. 3, which is in the killowing words: "did defendant No. 1 take the premises in dispute besides some other rooms from the plaintiff as a managing contractor with a right to sublet the same or any portion thereof ? ( 5 ) IF so, what were the other terms of the contract ? was decided in the defendant s favour and the. plea of forcible entry by defendant No. 1 in room No. 12 was decided against the plaintiff. To be precise in regard to his conclusion on issue No. 3, he found that the possession of defendant No. 1 was under some agreement with the plaintiff and that agreement was an agreement of lease. plea of forcible entry by defendant No. 1 in room No. 12 was decided against the plaintiff. To be precise in regard to his conclusion on issue No. 3, he found that the possession of defendant No. 1 was under some agreement with the plaintiff and that agreement was an agreement of lease. It is unnecssary for our present purpose to refer to the other findings of the learned Subordinate Judge. ( 6 ) ON appeal in this Court, a Division Bench reversed the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge and in the couse of the. order observed thus :- "the case of the first defendant, therefore, must fail on the short ground that the lease which he set himself to prove in the written statement has not been established. The first defendant can have no other interest in the property in suit except as a lessee and if the tenancy is not proved he is no more than a tresspassser. It is not denied that notice of ejectment had been duly served and there really is no answer to the suit for possession brought by the pliantiff. "in so far as claim for damages is concerned, a decree for Rs. 1,500. 00 was awarded. ( 7 ) THE application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been presented by Shri M. L. Dhawan alone. In support of this application, Shri Raghbir Singh has primarily relied on the argument that theie amount or value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the Court of first instance and still in dispute on appeal is not less than Rs. 20,000. 00 and in the alternative that the impugned judgment and decree involve directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting property of the like amount or value. The appeal is thus claimed to be as of right. The learned counsel quite clearly stated that he was not claiming title to the property which is called the Regal Buildings, nor docs he assert title to rooms Nos. 9 and 12. His sole argument, as we can understand has been that the plaintiff had. filed a suit for possession of these two rooms which were asserted to be in possession of defendant No. 1 (petitioner in these proceedings), with the result that the suit must be held to involve indirectly some claim or question respecting property worth more than Rs. 20,000. 00. filed a suit for possession of these two rooms which were asserted to be in possession of defendant No. 1 (petitioner in these proceedings), with the result that the suit must be held to involve indirectly some claim or question respecting property worth more than Rs. 20,000. 00. It is not denied that in the Court below, the parties had agreed by means of a statement that the market value of the site in dispute is Rs. 15,000. 00 and that the court fee may be assessed acording to this valuation. The learned counsel, Shri Raghbir Singh, however, argues that that was only an admission for the purpose of court-fee and that the real value can be asserted by him now to be more than Rs. 20,000. 00. We are unable to uphold this submission. It was a case in which some valuation for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction could be fixed. It is, therefore, not easy for us to permit the present petitioner (defendant No. 1) to assert higher valuation than was agreed to by him in the trial Court. The learned counsel has not shown the basis on which the value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the trail Court or on appeal can be determined to amount to Rs. 20,000. 00 or more. The appeal thus does not be as of right. ( 8 ) THE only other point, therefore, which calls for examination is if the present case can be considered to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court as required by Article 133 (l) (c) of the Constitution. On this point precious little has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and all that he has said is that section 53-A, Transfer of Property Act, applies to the case and therefore, he is entitled to a certificate