The question of valuation and court-fees in a suit for eviction against a licensee has come up before our High Courts once again : A. I. R. (36) 1919 Cal. 621, Satish Kumar v. Sailabasini Devi and A. I. R. (34) 1947 Bom. 482 : (49 Bom. L.R. 552), Batilal v. Chandulal. There is another recent Division Bench ruling of the Calcutta High Court (Mitter & Roxburgh JJ. Civil Rule (Rev.) 880 of 1948 Ratan Lal v. Krisna Kishore) which remains unreported even now. Other rulings on the point are old—A. I. R. (14) 1927 Pat. 140: (5 Pat. 631), Mt. Bakratunnisa v. Kaniza Fatima, and 24 C. W. N. 167, Basiram v. Ganesh. In the recent judgments our High Courts have taken a view just opposite to the old decisions. Formerly it was held that in such Suits plaintiff could put a notional value for his relief and pay court-fees thereon, while in the later rulings their Lordships have held that such suits will have to be valued according to S. 7 (v), Court-fees Act. A study of the reasons ....