Under the amended provisions of O.33, C.P.C., the subject-matter of the suit is excluded in determining the plaintiff's means to pay the court fee. This means that the entire property itself is not the subject-matter of the suit, but rather the specific right or interest being disputed in the suit.

ORDER :- This revision petition gives rise to a short but interesting question with regard to the property to be excluded for the purpose of determining the means of the plaintiff to pay the requisite court-fee. The defendant has preferred this revision petition against the order of the III Additional Judge, Secunderabad, whereby he granted leave to the plaintiff to file the suit in forma pauperis.

2. The plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 37,050/- towards past mesne profits, with future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day together with future interest and for possession of the suit premises. The plaint allegation is that the defendant is the tenant of the suit premises with a monthly rent of Rs. 550/- whose period of lease expired by 31-12-1973 and therefore he is a tenant by sufferance. The case of the defendant appears to be that he has a right of renewal from time to time. The three plaintiffs filed in forma pauperis the earlier suit, O.S. No. 414/1969 for eviction. In that suit, the finding of the trial court was that the defendant-tenant had the right of option to renew the lease up to 30-12-1973.

Aggrieved by the said judgement, the three plaintiffs preferred an appeal in forma pauperis in C.C.C.A. No. 97 of 1975 which was dismissed on 24-3-1977 holding that the defendant-respondent validly exercised the option on 31-12-1973, but he has no further right of renewal. The plaintiffs thus claimed that the defendant is a tenant by sufferance and therefore he is liable to pay the past mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month and that after deducting the payment of Rs. 550/- per month, they claimed Rupees 37,050/- on that account and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day. It is however alleged by the plaintiffs that they are not possessed of sufficient means to pay the requisite court-fee of Rs. 3292/-.

3. The inability of the plaintiffs to pay the court-fee was disputed by the defendant in the suit. The contention is that the suit premises is worth rupees two lakhs and that the subject-matter of the suit is only the tenancy right, the plaintiffs' title is not disputed and therefore that value of the suit property has to be taken into account in determining the capacity of the plaintiffs to pay the court-fee.

4. One of the plaintiffs has been examined as P.W. 1 in support of the alleged indigency of the plaintiffs. No rebuttal evidence has been let in by the defendant. On a consideration of the material, the learned Additional Judge held that the evidence does not disclose that the plaintiffs possessed any other property which would enable them to pay the court-fee. Alternatively, he held that even if the petitioners are held entitled to the property, there is nothing to show that even the comparatively small amount of court-fee could be raised on the security of the suit building. It is this order that is sought to be assailed in the revision petition.

5. Mr. Seetharamayya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended as follows : Though this pauper petition is governed by the amended provisions of O.33, C.P.C. the subject-matter of the suit is a tenancy right involved and not the property as such, the title of which admittedly vests with the plaintiffs. Therefore, the value of the property cannot be excluded in determining the question of the sufficient means. The contention on the other hand is that the amended provisions of O.33 are substantially liberal provisions to enable an indigent person to seek permission of the Court in filing suits in forma pauperis. The further contention is that the examination of the question of the initial determination of the maintainability of the application is left to an officer of the Court under the amended provisions and this is another intendment of liberal application of the said provisions. It was lastly contended that the Court below cannot be said to have committed my error of jurisdiction in allowing the petition and t