Hon'ble ASOPA, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.3.2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan in Original Application No. 835/2010 whereby even after taking note of the compromise between the parties, it has been held that the court is not competent to issue direction for refund of the court fees as the said compromise is not in the Lok Adalat or through ADR conciliation. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Act, 2009 whereby in the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (for short `the Act of 1961') after the existing Section 65A, the following new Section 65B has been added: "65. Refund of Fee.-Where the Court refers the parties to a suit to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) and the matter is settled by one of the modes provided under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorising him to receive back from the Collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint." 3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the aforesaid newly inserted Sec. 65B, in case of settlement of the dispute, the petitioner shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorising him to receive back from the Collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint which is also applicable in a suit decided on the basis of compromise but the trial Court has not applied the said provision of the Act of 1961. 4. Counsel for the respondent State submits that keeping in view the newly added Sec. 65B, this Court may pass appropriate order. 5. I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered the aforesaid submissions of counsel for the parties. 6. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid newly inserted Section 65B is applicable on the settlement made outside the court. The Rent Tribunal has committed a serious error of law in not issuing direction for the refund of the court, fees. 7. 6. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid newly inserted Section 65B is applicable on the settlement made outside the court. The Rent Tribunal has committed a serious error of law in not issuing direction for the refund of the court, fees. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 10.3.2011 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan to pass appropriate order in the matter of refund of court fees as per aforesaid finding given by this Court, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.