JUDGMENT R.N. Prasad, J.- All the three appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. All the three appeals have been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.3.1991 passed by 6th Addl. District Judge, Patna in Title Appeal nos.215/86, 214/86 & 216/86 respectively reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.9.1986 passed by the Addl. Munsif, Patna City in Title Suit nos. 28/3 of 1985, 27/2 of 1985 and 29/4 of 1985 respectively. 3. The plaintiff purchased the suit premises on 30.6.1983 by a registered sale deed executed by one Parwati Devi and came in possession. She informed the defendants regarding purchase of the suit premises who were inducted tenant by the husband of her vendor Sheo Lal Sah on monthly rental of Rs. 3/- each according to English calender beginning from 1st day of the month ad ending on the last date of the month. She purchased the suit premises for her own use as she was in rented house. She was in bonafide need of the suit premises. The defendants, inspite of information given about the purchase did not pay the rent since June, 1983 to May, 1985 and as such defendants are liable to be evicted on the ground of default also. 4. The case of the defendants was that there was no relationship of land-lord and tenant either with the vendor of the plaintiff or with the plaintiff. They did not pay rent to them at any time. The suit premises i.e. Municipal plot no. 647 area 66 karies belonged to one Most. Maruban Telin. She gifted the same to Sheo Lal Sah by registered deed of gift in the year 1947 and put him in possession thereof. The said Sheo Lal Sah had orally settled the suit premises i.e. northern portion of the said plot to Nathun Paswan, father of Sheo Nandan Paswan, Ram Nandan Paswan and 'Phupha' of Basant Paswan, the defendants as he was in the employment of Sheo Lal Sah. Sheo Lal Sah also executed Yaddasht evidencing the settlement on 5.6.1950. The said Nathun Paswan was paying ground rent at the rate of Rs. 36/- per annum. The said Nathun Paswan constructed three rooms on the vacant piece of settled land. Sheo Lal Sah also executed Yaddasht evidencing the settlement on 5.6.1950. The said Nathun Paswan was paying ground rent at the rate of Rs. 36/- per annum. The said Nathun Paswan constructed three rooms on the vacant piece of settled land. Nathun Paswan was living along with his family members including defendants in the suit premises. Shyam Sundri Devi was legally married wife of Sheo Lal Sah and Parwati Devi was his concubine. The defendants categorically denied payment of rent to Parwati Devi. Eviction suit has been filed by the plaintiff in the garb of declaration of title and recovery of possession. 5. The trial court held that there is no relationship of land-lord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendants have not defaulted in payment of rent nor the plaintiff is in bonafide need of suit premises and also that the plaintiff should have filed a separate suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and accordingly dismissed the suit. 6. The plaintiff filed Title Appeals against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court however, decreed the suit for eviction under Order 7 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the plaintiff has established her title and as such plaintiff is entitled to decree of eviction. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that although specific pleading was made in the written statement disputing the title of the plaintiff but no issue was framed with regard to the question of title. In para 22 of written statement it has specifically been stated that defendants acquired title by adverse possession but none of the courts below considered the said question of title by adverse possession. However, the appellate court decreed the suit for eviction even after holding that there is no relationship of land-lord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants on the ground that plaintiff has proved title and as such she is entitled to equitable relief for eviction. He further pointed out that no advalorem court fee has been paid although it was known to the plaintiff that question of title has been raised by the defendants. He further pointed out that no advalorem court fee has been paid although it was known to the plaintiff that question of title has been raised by the defendants. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that appellate court has categorically held that the plaintiff has proved her title and as such she was entitled for equitable relief as has been granted by the appellate court. 8. It is manifest from the material available on record that defendants categorically stated that there is no relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties. They also raised question disputing the title of the plaintiff and claim their own title over the suit premises by virtue of oral settlement in the year 1950 from Sheo Lal Sah on payment of ground rent at the rate of Rs. 36/- per annum. They also claimed title by adverse possession. No issue was framed with regard to title of the parties. The courts below concurrently held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The trial court also held that the plaintiff should have filed a separate suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. However, the appellate court decreed the suit under Order 7 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the plaintiff has proved her title and hence is entitled for equitable relief. 9. It is an admitted position that no ad valorem court fee has been paid by the plaintiff. It is true that object of Order 7 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to avoid multiplicity of suit in cases where relief can be granted on facts and in the circumstances of particular case even if not so distinctly pleaded nor relief sought for on such facts. However, the payment of ad valorem court fee is essential for granting relief under Order 7 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure as has been held in the case of Raghubr Prasad Dayal vs. Ram Equbal Sah, AIR 1986 Patna-78 : 1985 PLJR 891 . 10. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the defendants specifically raised question of title by adverse possession but none of the courts below considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the defendants specifically raised question of title by adverse possession but none of the courts below considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter. The appellate court, no doubt, has held that the plaintiff has established her title but has failed to consider• as to whether the defendant have acquired title by adverse possession. Learned counsel for the respondents also conceded that the appellate court has not considered the question of title by adverse possession as has been pleaded by the defendants. It is true that equitable relief can be granted in a suit for eviction even though the plaintiff failed to establish the relationship of land-lord and tenant provided the plaintiff succeeds in establishing title over the suit premises. In the instant case admittedly as has been stated above that the appellate court decreed the suit but has failed to consider the question raised by the counsel for the appellant that the defendants acquired title by adverse possession. 11. Thus all the three appeals are allowed and the finding recorded by the appellate court with regard to Order 7 Rule 7 C.P.C. and granting equitable relief of eviction is hereby set aside and the case is remitted to the trial court to determine the market value of the properties involved in the suit and to demand payment of ad valorem court fee from the plaintiff and decide the suit by framing specific issue with regard to title in accordance with law. However, without any cost.