S. K. MAHAJAN, J. (ORAL) ( 1 ) PLAINTIFF filed this suit for possession and recovery of mesne profit anddamages on the allegations that commencing from 1/04/1994 the premisescomprising of shop No. 3 left wing, ground floor of property No. 10/60-P, Kirtinagar Industrial Area, New Delhi, measuring 750 sq. ft. , was let to the defendanton a rent of Rs. 4,080. 00 p. m. The premises was let for a period of two years w. e. f. 1/04/1994 and on the expiry of the lease when the tenant did not vacate thesame, the plaintiff served three notices dated 6/04/1996: 16th April, 1996 and25 25/09/1996 terminating the tenancy of the premises, though, accordingto the plaintiff, on the expiry of the lease on 31/03/1996 no notice wasrequired to be served for termination of lease. After the termination of lease, theplaintiff filed this suit for possession as well as for damages/mesne profits from 1/04/1996 to 31/12/1996 at the rate of Rs. 12. 000. 00 per month. In theplaint, the plaintiff besides claiming a sum of Rs. 1,08,000. 00 as the mesne profitshas also claimed possession. In paragraph 8 of the plaint while valuing the suit forpurposes of Court fee and jurisdiction, the plaintiff has stated as under :- "that the market value of the premises is Rs. 5,25,000. 00 (Rupees five lakhs twentyfive thousand only) which is the valuation for the purposes of court fee andjurisdiction for the purposes of possession and Damages/mesne Profits is Rs. 1,08,000. 00 (Rupees one lakh eight thousand only) on which appropriate court feehas been paid. The plaintiff has also paid additional Court fee of Rs. 10. 00 formesnes profits/damages. " ( 2 ) THE value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction insofar as the relief ofpossession is concerned has been valued at Rs. 5,25,000. 00 on the ground that thatis the market value of the property. After summons in the suit were served uponthe defendants, written statement was filed and one of the objections taken in thewritten statement was that the suit has not been properly valued for purposes ofcourt fee and jurisdiction. ( 3 ) ON 7/01/1999 the Court observed that under Section 7 (xi) (cc) of thecourt Fees Act in a suit for recovery of possession of an immovable property froma tenant whose tenancy has been terminated, the amount of Court fee payable isone year s rent. ( 3 ) ON 7/01/1999 the Court observed that under Section 7 (xi) (cc) of thecourt Fees Act in a suit for recovery of possession of an immovable property froma tenant whose tenancy has been terminated, the amount of Court fee payable isone year s rent. The valuation of the suit for purposes of Court fee and jurisdictionfixed at Rs. 5,25,000. 00 appeared to the Court to be arbitrary. That is howarguments of learned counsel for the parties have been heard on the question as towhether the suit has been properly valued for purposes of Court fee andjurisdiction. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff submits that under Section 7 (xi) (cc) of thecourt Fees Act, it is only in the case of a tenant holding over that the Court fee ispayable on the amount of annual rent of the property. He contends that in case thedefendant is not a tenant holding over, the suit has to be valued on the market priceof the property as the defendant on the termination of the tenancy is a trespassertherein. He also relies upon Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act in supportof his contention that a tenant holding over is the tenant from whom the rent hasbeen accepted by the landlord after termination of the lease. Section 116 of thetransfer of Property Act is in the following terms:- "116. Effect of holding over:- If a lessee or under-lessee of property remains inpossession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee, andthe lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under-lessee,or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession to lease is, in the absence ofan agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month,according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as specified in Section 106. " ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff has also relied upon the judgments reportedas Champat Vs. Balakdas, 1925 Nagpur 131 and Gobinda Ram Agarwala Vs. Dulu Pada Dutta and Others, AIR 1928 Calcutta 753 (1), wherein it has beenheld that once the tenancy had been determined the person who has been a tenantbecame a trespasser holding on, and he could only be a tenant holding overprovided such holding over was with the consent, express or implied, of thelandlord. Dulu Pada Dutta and Others, AIR 1928 Calcutta 753 (1), wherein it has beenheld that once the tenancy had been determined the person who has been a tenantbecame a trespasser holding on, and he could only be a tenant holding overprovided such holding over was with the consent, express or implied, of thelandlord. The Courts in the aforesaid cases, therefore, held that a tenant whosetenancy was determined was not a tenant holding over and was a trespasserholding on and the suit for ejectment of such a tenant does not fall within themeaning of Section 7 (xi) (cc) of the Court Fees Act. ( 6 ) SECTION 116 of the Transfer of Property Act speaks of only the effect of theacceptance of rent from a tenant whose tenancy has been determined. In view ofthis provision of law, in case, the landlord accepts rent from a tenant even after thetermination of the lease, the notice of termination will be deemed to have beenwaived and the tenancy of the person whose tenancy had been terminated isrenewed from year to year or month to month, as the case may be. Section 116 ofthe Act does not define a "tenant holding over". In my view, Section 116 of thetransfer of Property Act is not applicable to the present case. With due respect tothe learned Judges of the Calcutta and Nagpur High Courts, I have not been able topursuade myself to agree with the view of the learned Judges expressed in theaforesaid judgments. The view taken by the learned Judges of the Calcutta andnagpur High Courts, in my opinion, is contrary to the plain language of Section7 (xi) (cc) of the Court Fees Act. ( 7 ) THE case in hand, in my view, is clearly covered by the provisions of Section7 (xi) (cc) of the Court Fees Act as it is a case of recovery of immovable propertyfrom atenant after the termination of his tenancy. There does not appear to be anyother provision in the Court Fees Act which, in my view, would be applicable to thefacts of the present case. The defendant being a tenant continuing in possession ofthe premises even after the termination of the tenancy, the plaintiff should havevalued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at the annual rent of the premises. Therent of the premises being Rs. 4. 080. 00 p. m. the jurisdictional value could not bemore than Rs. 48,960. The defendant being a tenant continuing in possession ofthe premises even after the termination of the tenancy, the plaintiff should havevalued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at the annual rent of the premises. Therent of the premises being Rs. 4. 080. 00 p. m. the jurisdictional value could not bemore than Rs. 48,960. 00. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the plaintiffsubmits that under Section 4 of the Court Fees Act it is only in the case of undervaluation that the Court can ask the plaintiff to make up the deficiency in Court fee,however, in the case of over valuation the plaint cannot be rejected and the Courtmust proceed with the suit. In my view, there is a basic fallacy in the arguments oflearned counsel for the plaintiff inasmuch as it is not a case where the Court isrejecting the plaint on account of over valuation or over payment of Court fee. Aparty cannot be permitted to fix an arbitrary value for purposes of jurisdiction. Asheld in Chand Bal and Another Vs. Kamal Kumar and Others, AIR 1988supreme Court 1636, the tenant cannot whimsically choose a ridiculous figure forfiling the suit most arbitrarily where there are positive materials and/or objectivestandards of valuation of the relief appearing on the face of the plaint and wherethere are objective standards of valuation, or in other words, the plaintiff or thecourt can reasonably value the relief correctly on certain definite and positivematerials, the plaintiff will not be permitted to put an arbitrary valuation de horssuch objective standards or materials. In this case as well there is a definite andpositive material available before the Court to fix the value for purposes ofjurisdiction and the plaintiff cannot be permitted to put an arbitrary valuation so asto bring the suit within the jurisdiction of this Court. ( 8 ) IN my view, therefore, the suit having not been property valued and the valueof the suit being on the annual rent of the property could not be more than Rs. 48,960. 00, the plaintiff has also claimed damages/mesne profits of Rs. 1,08,000/.-,the value of the suit is, therefore, not more than Rs. 1,50,000. 00. That being theposition, this Court will not have any pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit. I,accordingly, direct the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation beforeproper Court.