The main legal point established in the judgment is that a tenant, with a restricted interest in the property, should not be required to pay court-fee on the market value of the entire property when seeking recovery of possession.

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 the plaintiff really takes in the room described in the schedule to the plaint which is now in the occupation of the 1st defendant and that the 1st defendant has got into possession either because the 2nd defendant had no clear idea of the extent of the building demised or because he was negligent and indifferent or because of the 1st defendant's influence over the 2nd defendant or for some other reason! On these averments the lower court held that S.30 of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 applied and directed court-fee to be paid on the market value of the room fixed at ten times the annual income from the building scheduled in the plaint. The learned Munsiff concluded:

"In this case, the plaintiff alleges that the annual income from the building scheduled is Rs. 780 and the market value has to be fixed at ten times of such income or rental from the scheduled building. If that be so, the plaintiff has to value the suit at Rs. 7, 809 and pay court-fee on that. For the above said reasons, I find that the plaintiff has to value the suit at Rs. 7,800/-and pay court-fee on that amount. The plaintiff will file a revised valuation statement and pay court-fee on this amount...."

2. It is contended by counsel for the revision petitioner that the appropriate Section that applies to the case is S.43 (2) of the Act since, according to him, the suit is by a tenant for recovery of possession of a part of the subject of demise. He relies upon a ruling reported in Easo Chakko v. Karola Geevarughese (XXX TLR. 222) and urges that even if the defendant is a stranger, a plaintiff-tenant can avail himself of S.43 of the Act. He has also referred me to two decisions of the Madras High Court reported in Kesanna v. Boya Bala Gangappa (AIR. 1947 Madras 297) and Ghulam Dastagir Saheb v Marudai Pillai (AIR. 1948 Madras 409). Another decision which throws some light on this question is reported in Pralhad Narayan v. Mankunabai (AIR. 1954 Nagpur 124). There is no need to discuss these decisions in detail since I am inclined to think that none of them can help the plaintiff to come within the concessional provisions of S.43 on the present allegations.

3. Speaking broadly, court-fee is a fetter on the assertion of a right or the seeking of a remedy by a party, although a person who is unable to pay court-fee may thereby be deprived of the equal protection of the laws notwithstanding the considerate treatment extended, under Order XXXIII CPC., to paupers. That question, however, does not arise here, but I am persuaded to take the view that the provisions of the law of court-fees which are ameliorative in the sense of enabling a party to pay a lesser court-fee should be interpreted liberally A tenant, who has only a lesser right in property, cannot justly be called up