S. H. A. RAZA, J. Respondent No. 3 Sikander Ali filed a suit bearing No. 43 of 1993 in the month of January, 1993 against two persons, namely, Begum Sayeeda Wajahat H :sain and Mr. Abdullah alias Waliullah claiming possession and recoveryof Rs. 5,42,819. 2. Initially, the contention of the plaintiff in that suit was that he was the tenant of Begum Sayeeda Wajahat Hussain over a portion of land in which there were certain constructions ; but he was wrongly dispossessed on 29th August, 1994 with the collusion of the defendants of the suit who got the son of plaintiff arrested in a criminal case and forcibly took over the possession of the shop. 3. The plaintiff who was an aged man prayed for the recovery of possession of the premises in suit and paid Court fee of Rs. 1,200 on the annual rental value of the premises in which he claimed to be a tenant. He also prayed for passing of a decree for recovery of movables specified in Schedule and in the alternative its price worth Rs. 3,00,000. 00 on which he paid Court-fee of Rs. 22,987. 50. He also claimed damages (mesne profits) from 2-6-92 to 20-1-93 amounting to Rs. 23,693. 00 on which he paid Court-fee of Rs. 2,207. 50 paisa. Thereafter drastic amendments were made in the plaint as the plaintiff came to know lateron when an objection was filed on behalf of defendants in the said suit against the grant of an injunction passed by the trial Court that Begum Sayeeda Wajahat Hussain has transferred the property in favour of the petitioner. 4. As stated in foregoing paragraph an injunction was granted by the trial Court restraining Begum Sayeeda Wajahat Hussain and Mr. Abdullah alias Waliullah, restraining them from raising any construction over the said premises. Thereafter counter-affidavit was filed from which it transpired that the land was transferred in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter amendment application was preferred arraying the petitioner as one of the defendants and certain other pleas were also raised. The amendment application was allowed. 5. Plaintiff asserted in the amended plaint that, he had never seen the face of even any of the Directors of M/s. Gemini Continental (P) Ltd. the petitioner had never met with any of its official. The amendment application was allowed. 5. Plaintiff asserted in the amended plaint that, he had never seen the face of even any of the Directors of M/s. Gemini Continental (P) Ltd. the petitioner had never met with any of its official. In fact, the petitioner was not aware about the said Company nor he did know about purchase of the suit property by the said company as there had never been any occasion for the plaintiff to enter into any transaction with the said Company. It was asserted in the amended plaint that the plaintiff never surrendered his tenancy. The case of the plaintiff thus appears to be is that the petitioner who had purchased the property stepped into the shoes of Begum Sayeeda Wajahat Hussain being the landlord and hence the plaintiff became the tenant of petitioner, but the plaintiff was dispossessed from the premises without due process of law. 6. Reliance was placed on an agreement alleged to be executed by the plaintiff, according to which the plaintiff alleged to have surrendered the tenancy which fact had been refuted by the plaintiff. 7. Earlier in the matter pertaining to grant of temporary injunction, a writ bearing No. 1667 (MS)/1997 was filed before this Court by the plaintiff Shri Sikander Ali against the orders of the Court below refusing to grant an injunction. Sri Sikander Ali wanted this Court to restrain the petitioner who was subsequently arrayed as a party to the suit, after the amendment in the plaint from making construction over the premises to which Sri Sikander Ali claimed to be a tenant. This Court passed an order in the said writ petition on 17-7-97, the operative portion of the order is reproduced below- "in view of what has been indicated hereinafter I direct the IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow to make an earnest endeavour to dispose of the suit as the petitioner as well as respondent No. 12 have given an undertaking that they would not seek any adjournment. It is further provided that the construction made, or which would be made by the respondent No. 12 (petitioner of this writ petition) shall be at his own risk and it would be subject to the result in the suit. In the meantime the respondent No. 12 will not transfer or lease appurtenant thereto, which is the subject matter of the suit to anybody else. In the meantime the respondent No. 12 will not transfer or lease appurtenant thereto, which is the subject matter of the suit to anybody else. " 8. It was submitted by Shri N. K. Seth, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the suit itself a preliminary issue was framed regarding the valuation and court-fee, and that issue was decided by the trial Court on 8-l-1998in favour of the plaintiff wherein the Court held that the suit was rightly valued by the plaintiff and Court-fee paid was sufficient. 9. Being aggrieved against the said order, plaintiff filed a revision, bearing Revision No. 39 of 1998. As a result of filing of the revision the proceeding in the trial court could not start as the record was summoned by the District Judge. Thereafter a writ petition was filed bearing No. 459 (MS) of 1998 by Sri Sikander Ali in which he preferred an application upon which on 19-2-1998, the Honble Single Judge passed an order, staying the impugned order dated 31-1-98 passed by the District Judge. The Court further directed the trial Court to proceed ahead to decide the case in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition. 10. Thereafter three witnesses were examined by the plaintiff. On 24-9-98 the District Judge, Lucknow dismissed the revision which was filed against the order of the trial Court deciding the preliminary issue on the question of valuation and Court-fee. 11. Being aggrieved against the said order, the plaintiff who was contesting defendant of the said suit has filed the present writ petition. 12. On 24-9-98 the District Judge, Lucknow dismissed the revision which was filed against the order of the trial Court deciding the preliminary issue on the question of valuation and Court-fee. 11. Being aggrieved against the said order, the plaintiff who was contesting defendant of the said suit has filed the present writ petition. 12. It was contended by Sri Umesh Chandra, Senior Counsel that the plaintiff has filed the suit for possession hence he should have paid the Court-fee under Section 7 (v) of the Court Fee Act which reads as under: 7 (v) For possession of lands, buildings or gardens-The suit for the possession of land, building or gardens- according to the value of the subject-matter ; and such value shall be deemed to be- (1) where the subject matter is land and (a) where the land forms an entire estate or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate, and is recorded in the Collectors register as separately assessed with such revenue is and such revenue is permanently settled- thirty times the revenue so payable; (b) where the land forms an entire estate or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid and such revenue is settled but not permanently. Ten times the revenue so payable: (c) where the land pays no such revenue or has been partially exempted from such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue, and net profits have arisen from the land during the three years immediately preceding the date of presenting the plaint- twenty times the annual average of such nett profits, but when no such nett profits have arisen therefrom, the market-value which shall be determined by multiplying by twenty the annual average nett profits of similar land for the three years immediately preceding the date of presenting the plaint; (d) where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and does not come under clause (a), (b) or (c) above the market value of the land, which shall be determined by multiplying by fifteen the rental value of the land, including assumed rent on proprietary cultivation, if any. " 13. " 13. Section 7 (xi) of the Court Fee Act deals with the suit between landlord and tenant. 14. Section 7 (xi) (a) pertains to recover the occupancy of immovable property from which a tenant has been illegally ejected by the landlord. In such a situation, the Court-fee has to be paid on annual amount of rent of immovable property to which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint, except in the case of suits falling under clause (h) in which, according to twice the amount claimed by the plaintiffs to be the annual rent. Section 7 (xi) (h) deals with the determination of rent which is not applicable in the context of the present case. 15. Rule-3 of the Uttar Pradesh Suits Valuation Rules, 1942 which have been framed by the U. P. Government which reads as under: Rule 3. Section 7 (xi) (h) deals with the determination of rent which is not applicable in the context of the present case. 15. Rule-3 of the Uttar Pradesh Suits Valuation Rules, 1942 which have been framed by the U. P. Government which reads as under: Rule 3. Suits for possession of land, buildings and gardens- In suits for the possession of land, the value of the land for purposes of jurisdiction shall be determined as follows: (a) where the land forms an entire estate or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue to Government or forms part of such estate and such part is recorded in the Collectors register as separately assessed with such revenue, and such revenue, is permanently settled-Fifty-five times the annual revenue so payable; (b) where the land forms an entire estate or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue to Government or forms part or such part is recorded in the Collectors register as separately assessed with such revenue, and such revenue is not permanently settled-thirty times the annual revenue so payable; (c) where the land pays no annual revenue or has been partially exempted from such payment, or is charged with a fixed payment in lieu of such revenue, and no profits have arisen from the land during the three years immediately preceding the date of presenting the plaint- (i) fifty-five or thirty times the normal annual revenue when such revenue has been assessed according as the land is in a permanently or temporarily settled area; or (ii) where no such nominal revenue has been assessed, twenty times the annual average of such net profits; but where no such profits have arisen from the lands-twenty times the annual average net profits or similar land for the three years immediately preceding the date of presenting the plaint; (d) where the land forms part of an estate paying annual revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and does not come under the clause (a), (b) or (c) of this rule-fifty five or thirty times the annual revenue payable in respect of such a land according as in a permanently or temporarily settled area; (e) where there are also buildings or a gardens on the land the aggregate of the value of the land as determined in accordance with these rules plus the market value of such buildings or gardens situated therein. " 16. Rule-4 of the Uttar Pradesh Suits Valuation Rules, 1942 reads as under- Rule 4. Suits for possession of superior proprietary, under-proprietary and sub-proprietary rights in land.-The value of the suits for the purposes of jurisdiction in suits for possession- (a) of superior proprietary rights where under proprietary or sub-proprietary rights exist in the land shall be twenty times the annual net profits of the superior proprietor; (b) of under proprietary land as such shall be twenty times the annual under proprietary or sub- proprietary rent, as the case may be, recorded in the Collectors register as payable for the land for the year next before the presentation of the plaint. If no such rent is recorded in the Collectors register, the value shall be determined by multiplying twenty times rents for similar land for the year next before the presentation of the plaint. 17. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, it has to be seen as to whether the plaintiff has claimed any superior proprietary or under proprietary right or any other right or title to recover the possession of the property in which he was a tenant. 18. Shri Umesh Chandra, Senior Counsel vehemently contended that the plaintiff has claimed the relief for possession hence the plaintiff should pay Court fee on a market-value of the property. 19. I have gone through the contents of the plaint from which it transpires that the plaintiff being aggrieved against his dispossession from the premises on which he claimed to be a tenant, has prayed for recovery of the possession, hence his case falls within the scope and ambit of Section 7 (xi) (e) of the Court Fee Act. Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules framed under the Suit Valuation Act are not attracted in the present case. 20. This aspect of the matter was considered both by the trial Court as well as the revisional Court. It is well settled in Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299 , that whether proper Court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State. The jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly conditioned by clause (a) to (c) thereof. It is well settled in Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299 , that whether proper Court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State. The jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly conditioned by clause (a) to (c) thereof. The defendant who may believe and even honestly, that proper Court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior Courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of Court-fee payable on the plaint. 21. Before the Honble Supreme Court interpretation of Section 12 (2) of the Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act was under consideration. The Court held that Section 22 of the Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act only enables the defendant to raise a contention as to the proper Court-fee payable on a plaint and to assist the Court in arriving at a just decision on that question. There is no provision in the Madras Court Fees Act or any other statute which enables the defendant to move the High Court in revision against the decision of the Court of first instance on the matter of Court-fee payable in a plaint. The anxiety of the Legislature to collect Court-fee due from the litigant is manifest from the detailed provisions made in Chapter III of the Madras Act; but those provisions do not arm the defendant with a weapon of technicality to obstruct the progress of the suit by approaching the High Court in revision against an order determining the Court-fee payable. 22. A similar question cropped up before Kerala High Court in Vasu v. Chaki Mani, AIR 1962 Ker 84 . The Kerala High Court relying upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla (supra), held that unless the question of Court-fee involves also the question of jurisdiction of the Court, no revision will lie. 23. The matter was again agitated before Honble Supreme Court in Sham- shersinghv. Rajinderprasad,air1973sc page 2384, wherein reliance upon the earlier judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Ratnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla (supra) was placed. 23. The matter was again agitated before Honble Supreme Court in Sham- shersinghv. Rajinderprasad,air1973sc page 2384, wherein reliance upon the earlier judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Ratnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla (supra) was placed. Affirming the view expressed by Kerala High Court and earlier decision the Honble Supreme Court observed: "before us a preliminary objection was raised based on the observations of this Court in Rathnavarmaraja v, Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299 , that the present appeal is not competent. In that case this Court observed that whether proper Court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State and that the defendants who may believe and even honestly that proper Court fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior Courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of Court-fee payable on the plaint. But the observations must be understood in the back ground of the facts of that case. This Court was there dealing with an application for revision filed before the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and pointed out that the jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court is strictly conditioned by clauses (a) to (c) thereof and may be invoked on the ground of refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Subordinate Court or assumption of jurisdiction which the Court does not possess or on the ground that the Court has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and the provisions of Sections 12 and 19 of the Madras Court Fees Act do not arm the defendant with a weapon of technicality to obstruct the progress of the suit by approaching the High Court in revision against an order determining the Court fee payable. The ratio of that decision was that no revision on a question of Court-fee lay where no question of jurisdiction was involved. This decision was correctly interpreted by the Kerala High Court in Vasu v. Chakki Mani, AIR 1962 Ker 84 , where it was pointed out that no revision will lie against the decision on the question of adequacy of Court-fee at the instance of the defendant. . . . . unless the question of Court-fee involves also the question of jurisdiction of the Court. " 24. . . . . unless the question of Court-fee involves also the question of jurisdiction of the Court. " 24. In the light of the aforesaid observations of the Honble Supreme Court it has to be looked into as to whether revision which was preferred by the plaintiff before the District Judge was maintainable or not. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lucknow who passed the order on the preliminary issue has an unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. Hence the question of jurisdiction of the Court was not involved in this case. In view of law laid down by Honble Supreme Court, the revision was not at all maintainable. Hence, the District Judge, Lucknow rightly dismissed the revision. 25. However, Mr. Umesh Chandra contended that the petitioner was forced to file the revision before the District Judge as the Court below held that the valuation was below five lacs, otherwise it ought to have been filed before the High Court as the valuation of suit was much more than five lac. As the valuation of the suit is much more than 5 lac. after the decision in the suit the first appeal shall lie to the High Court and not to District Judge. Hence the question of jurisdiction of the District Judge to hear the appeal is involved in the case. The argument is not fallacious but misconceived. The valuation of the suit and payment of Court-fee depends on the basis of the pleading of the suit and the relief sought in the suit. As I have already held that Court-fee was payable under Section 7 (xi) (e) of the Court Fee Act, this argument has no force. 26. Senior Counsel Sri Umesh Chandra further referred to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Shanti Prasad & Ors. v. Mahabir Singh & Ors. , AIR 1957 Allahabad 402, I fail to understand how the learned Counsel for the petitioner finds support from the observations of the Full Bench in the present case. In that regard, the plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, whose pecuniary jurisdiction extended to Rs. 5,000 only for possession of the land only. According to plaintiff, the value of the land and the house taken together was less than Rs. 5,000 and the suit was therefore enter-tainable by the Munsif. In that regard, the plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, whose pecuniary jurisdiction extended to Rs. 5,000 only for possession of the land only. According to plaintiff, the value of the land and the house taken together was less than Rs. 5,000 and the suit was therefore enter-tainable by the Munsif. The defendants contended the suit and pleaded, inter alia, that the suit had been undervalued and, if properly valued, it could not have been filed in the Court of the Munsif. They further stated that they had spent a considerable amount in constructing a well, houses and a garden on the land mentioned in list a and also improved the house mentioned in list b. If the value of the buildings and the garden which existed on the land in list A at the time of the suit was taken into consideration, the value of that property alone would be found to be more than Rs. 10,000. The suit was, therefore, not cognizable by the Munsif. 27. In the context of the facts mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, the Full Bench held that the suit has to be valued for two purposes ; (1) for payment of Court-fee, and (2) for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court in which it is to be filed. The valuation for purposes of Court-fee has to be made according to the provisions of the Court Fees Act. The valuation for purposes of jurisdiction has to be made under the Suits Valuation Act. In many cases the two valuations are likely to be identical, but that is by no means necessary. If the law so provides it is possible that the value of a suit for purposes of Court-fee may be different from its value for purposes of jurisdiction. It was further observed that the main relief claimed in the present suit being for possession over land and a house for purposes of Court- fee the suit was governed by para (v) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, and Court-fee had to be paid according to the value of the subject matter. 28. The present case does not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act, as the plaintiff has not staked any right of ownership or title for the premises in question. 28. The present case does not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act, as the plaintiff has not staked any right of ownership or title for the premises in question. He has staked for recovery of possession over the premises, of which he claims to be a tenant and was dispossessed from the same. Hence, his case would fall within the scope and ambit of Section 7 (xi) (e) of the Court Fees Act. 29. The observations of the Full Bench in Shanti Prasad & Ors. v. Mahabir Singh (supra) have no relevance for determination of valuation and court-fees in the present suit. 30. The revision, against an order where the Court-fee does not involve the jurisdiction of the Court was not maintainable either before the District Judge or before this Court. The District Judge has rightly dismissed the revision. Hence the petitioner has no right to agitate the matter by filing the writ petition before this Court. The view which has been taken by the District Judge while dismissing the revision does not suffer from any infirmity. The writ petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .