The expression "license fee payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint" in Section 7-VA (b) (i) of the Court Fees (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1963 means the license fee payable under the license which has been revoked.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It raises an interesting question of Court Fee on the Court Fees (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1963 (West Bengal Act XVIII of 1963 ).

( 2 ) THIS Rule was obtained by the petitioner on the 13th December, 1965 against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge passed in the suit for determination of the preliminary issue being issue No. 3 on Court-fees Act. The petitioners who were the plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants on the ground of revocation of a license. The license relates to a tank fishery locally known as "nalbon Fishery", situated at Kautatolla Chandi Bose's Abad under police Station Bhangore, within the district of 24-Parganas including an area of about 191 acres. A licence was granted to the father of the defendants in the month of Magh 1356 B. S. for pisci-culture or other rights to grow and culture fish in the water of the said tank fishery. The licence to begin with was for one year commencing from 1st of Falgoon 1356 B. S. till the last day of the month of Magh 1357 B. S. The licence fee payable was Rs. 181. The purpose of the licence was to use the water of the tank fishery for rearing and catching fish and for no other purpose. On the death of the father of the defendant, the defendant was permitted to continue this licence in his place till the end of Magh 1357 B. S. on the same terms and conditions. With the end of the month of Magh 1357 B. S. the defendant was granted a fresh licence for the year commencing from Falgoon 1357 B. S. till the end of Magh 1358 B. S. with similar rights as aforesaid on condition of payment of Rs. 20,000 as licence fee. Thereafter, the defendant was granted a similar licence twice each time for one year only. For the last time, the defendant was granted a similar licence with such rights and on the condition of payment of Rs. 22,000 as licence fee for the year from Falgoon 1368 B. S. till the end of Magh 1369 B. S. the plaintiffs determined and revoked that licence on the expiry of the month of Magh 1361 B. S. by a notice dated 13th Falgoon, 1361 B. S. asking the defendant to vacate the property and to give possession thereof to the plaintiffs. On the refusal of the defendant the present suit was filed being Title Suit No. 43 of 1965 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore for recovery of possession and mesne profits and also for damages.

( 3 ) THREE dates may be noticed at the outset as the arguments materially turned upon such dates. As will be seen from the dates, the licence was revoked on or about the 12th February, 1955. The amendment of the Court-fees Act came into force on the 3rd May, 1963. The present suit was filed on the 5th May, 1965. It will be convenient to bear these dates in mind to determine their impact in the arguments advanced before us.

( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge in determining this issue on the Court-fees payable by the plaintiffs came to certain decisions on the interpretation of the amending Act with regard to the plaint based on revocation of the licence with fee. That interpretation relates to the new amendment introduced into Section 7 of the Act after clause 5 of the existing statute by VA with clauses (a) and (b) (i) and (ii ). That interpretation requires to be examined in this Rule. He came to the conclusion that because the plaint in this case was filed on the 5th May, 1965 and the licence was determined about 10 years before that date in Magh 1361 B. S. there was no licence fee payable for the year 1964 which is "the year next before the institution of the suit". According to the learned Subordinate Judge, this lapse of time makes all the difference and by this lapse of time covering about a period of 10 years the status of the tenant or of the licensee was converted into the status of trespasser. He, therefore, cannot be said to be any more an ex-tenant or an ex-licensee in the eye of law. According to this view, h