CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter coming up for orders, is taken up for final disposal. ( 2 ) THE learned trial Judge while considering the issue relating to the Court fee has misinterpreted the pleadings which unforlunately are not clear. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff's case in substance is that her husband was running a bakery in a rented premises at the time when he killed himself ; that the defendants who are respondents in this proceeding and who happen to be the father and brothers of her deceased husband came only to assist her in the business and in that circumstance they were interfering with the business and occupied the premises claiming to be the legal heirs and therefore claimed to be the tenants of the premises. In such circumstances plaintiff asked for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the premises in question where bakery business was being carried on by her late husband and now by herself. ( 4 ) THE trial Court should have examined the essence of the pleadings and not make a stray observation that the defendanis are carrying on business and therefore there is dispute regarding title to the property. The question of title does not arise as admittedly the properly is a tenanted premises and neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants claim to be owners. Therefore, the suit was properly valued and as such payment of deficit court fee does not arise. ( 5 ) THE trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit itself as it is properly and adequately valued and the Court fee has beee paid thereon. This order is made ex-parte. The respondents who have remained unrepresented and absent though served. The revision is allowed. Revision petition allowed. --- *** --- .