JUDGMENT - Waikar M.R. J.-A short question that arises for consideration is whether the Court-fee paid by the plaintiff is proper, and the question arises in this way. The plaintiffs (non-applicants Nos. 1 to 5) filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (junior Division), Yavatmal, for ejectment, alleging that defendant No. 1 was their tenant and that his tenancy was validly determined after obtaining the written permission of the Rent Controller, Yavatmal. It was further alleged that after filing the plaint, when the plaintiffs went home, they found that defendant No. 1 removed his articles from the premises which were in his occupation and that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were in unauthorised and illegal occupation of the same. They, therefore, impleaded defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit and claimed possession. 2. Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint, on the ground that it was not properly valued. According to him, since the possession of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 was alleged as unauthorised, illegal and that of trespassers, the suit should have been valued on the basis of the market value of the property under section 6 (1) (v) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. 3. The learned trial Judge found that the plaint was properly valued under section 6 (xii) (d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act and rejected the application and, hence, this revision at the instance of original defendant No. 2. 3A. Shri Oka, the learned Counsel for the applicant, first referred to (Manikram v. Pt. Dhannalal)1. There, the Court fee was paid on the full value of the house and not on annual rent. It was alleged that the defendant No. 2, who was the tenant, on his transfer, did not deliver possession and at his instigation and collusion, the defendant No. 1 occupied the house without the consent of the plaintiff. During the hearing of the case, the defendant No. 1 delivered possession of the house and the dispute left to be decided was only about costs. Scrutinising the plaint allegation, it was ultimately found that the plaint nowhere showed that the defendant No. 1 was the sub-tenant of defendant No. 2. During the hearing of the case, the defendant No. 1 delivered possession of the house and the dispute left to be decided was only about costs. Scrutinising the plaint allegation, it was ultimately found that the plaint nowhere showed that the defendant No. 1 was the sub-tenant of defendant No. 2. The .case of defendant No. 2 was that the defendant No. 1 had, in fact, deceived him by telling him that the plaintiff had given him permission to occupy the house. The plaint, thus, clearly showed that though there was collusion alleged, the defendant No. 1 was not the agent, representative or sub-tenant of defendant No. 2 and as such the Court-fee was rightly paid on the full value of the house and not on the annual rent only. 4. Shri Oka next relied upon (Sidhya Chandra Behera v. State of Orissa and others)2. The plaintiff was the lessee of the land in question from the P. W. D. He filed a suit against the P. W. D. and also against the person to whom the possession of the land was given by the P. W. D. as a lessee, even though plaintiff's bid was the highest. The suit was for declaration of ownership over the land, injunction against the rival lessee and the P. W. D. authorities and confirmation of his possession. On these facts, it was held that the plaintiff claimed owner's interest and not tenant's interest, and the real issue involved was whether the plaintiff or the competing bidder was the lessee. The suit, it was held, in substance, was one for declaration of title with consequential relief of possession governed by section 7(iv)(c) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. The principle laid down in this decision was that for determination of the question whether the case comes under section 7(iv)(c) or section 7(xi)(d) of the Court Fees Act, it is the real nature and substance of the plaint in the suit and not merely the form which has to be carefully considered by the Court. 5. Yet another decision relied upon by Shri Oka was (Ananda v. Nanda Lal)3. There the party No. 1 was the licensee of the plaintiff in the past. 5. Yet another decision relied upon by Shri Oka was (Ananda v. Nanda Lal)3. There the party No. 1 was the licensee of the plaintiff in the past. It was alleged that his” licence was already terminated whereafter he and the opposite party No. 2 forcibly turned out the plaintiff from the entire room in question with the result that he had to bring a suit for possession. It was held that the Court-fee payable was on the market value, observing that the mere fact that the opposite party No. 1 was alleged to have been a licensee of the plaintiff some time back would not be material at all, for according to the allegations made in the plaint, the opposite party No. 1 as well as party No. 2, who was a total stranger, forcibly turned down the plaintiff from the room and the plaintiff had brought the suit against both treating them as wrongful occupiers or trespassers. 6. This Court in Nandlal v. Surajmal, (Appeal on Order No. 5 of 1957), on the plaint allegations that though the tenant-defendant No. 1 left the house, he had put defendant No. 2 in occupation thereof on his behalf, heldthat the Court fee paid was proper and no ad valorem Court-fee was required to be paid as it was emphatically alleged that the defendant No. 2 was solely in possession on behalf of the defendant No. 1. 7. Turning to the allegations of the plaint in the instant case, this is what was alleged by the plaintiff in para 13(a) and (c): “These defendants 2 and 3 are now unauthorisedly and illegally occupying the suit room as introduced by defendant No. 1 without any legal right or authority to remain in the suit room and do business. As plaintiffs found that defendant No. 1 illegally introduced the defendants 2 and 3 on the suit room, they issued a notice to all the defendants asking them to vacate the suit room immediately.” Thus, it was alleged by the plaintiffs that these defendants were inducted into possession by their tenant-defendant No. 1 and that their possession was on his behalf, though they chose to call their possession as unauthorised and illegal. Under these circumstances, the suit was not required to be valued under section 6(1)(v) of the Bombay Court Fees Act but it was rightly valued under section 6(xii)(d) of that Act. Under these circumstances, the suit was not required to be valued under section 6(1)(v) of the Bombay Court Fees Act but it was rightly valued under section 6(xii)(d) of that Act. I, therefore, see no substance in this revision and the same is dismissed., The order of the lower Court is hereby maintained. No order as to costs. Revision dismissed. -----