1. The plaintiff-revision petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the Munsiff's Court holding that the court-fee paid by him was insufficient and that he should pay court-fee under S.30 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act instead of under S 43 of the said Act. The appropriate court-fee to be paid has to be determined on the allegations in the plaint. In this case the suit is for recovery of possession of a room from the 1st defendant on the ground that the room is part of a building leased to the plaintiff by the State Bank of Travancore on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. The plaintiff valued the prayer for recovery at Rs. 780/-computed on the basis of one year's rent apportioned by him for the room, i. e., at the rate of Rs. 65/-per mensem. The 2nd defendant was the special officer of the Kottayam Orient Bank and on behalf of the said Bank leased the building to the plaintiff. The rights of the Kottayam Orient Bank have ultimately vested in the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank although the 2nd defendant is not seen impleaded as representing the lessor as such. The plaint proceeds on the footing that defendants 1 and 2 are friends, that the building leased to t