Computation of Court fee u/s 7(v)(e) for the suit for ejectment.

This petition raises a question relating to court-fee. The petitioners instituted a suit for ejectment of the defendants from the suit house alleging that the defendants who were let into possession of the suit house as licensee refused to vacate the same when demanded. They valued the suit under section 7(xi)(cc) of the Court-Fees Act. The recitals in the plaint were that in a partition between the plaintiffs and their brother the suit house was allotted to the share of the latter, that their brother allowed the defendants to use the suit house as licensees that after the death of their brother they became entitled to the property and that in spite of the revocation of the licence the defendants refused to surrender possession of the same to them and denied the plaintiffs’ right.

On an objection taken by the Court-Fee Examiner that the suit was not correctly valued, the question was gone into by the District Munsif and it was decided by him that the value had to be computed for purposes of court-fee under section 7 (v) (e) and not under section 7(xi)(cc) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the trial court called upon the plaintiffs to give the market-value of the property and pay ad valorem court-fee on that basis.

In this revision petition the order of the District Munsif is sought to be revised.

In support of the petition Mr. Aravamudha Aiyangar urges that the view of the trial court is erroneous and that the provision of law applicable to the present case is either section 7(xi)(cc) or Schedule II, Article 17(b) of the Court-Fees Act and relies on two decisions, one of Allahabad High Court in Ram Raj Tewari v Girnandan Bhagat1 and another of Patna High Court in Mussamat Barkatunnessa Begum v. Mussamat Kaniza Fatma2. A reference to the provisions of the Act shows that section 7(xi)(cc) cannot have any application to a suit to recover possession of the property from a licensee. It provides a cheap remedy “for recovery of immoveable property from a tenant, including a tenant holding over after determination of a tenancy”. A licensee cannot be included in the term ‘tenant’. I fail to see how section 7(xi)(cc) of the Act has any bearing on the present case There is therefore no support for this argument either on a plain reading of the section or by way of decided cases. In fact the two decisions relied on by him furnish an answer to his contention and I will refer to them shortly.

Coming to the argument that the suit is incapable of valuation and for that reason comes within the purview of Schedule II, Article 17(b) of the Court-Fees Act there is not much substance in it either. It cannot be said that it is incapable of valuation as the relief asked for is the possession of a house which is covered by section 7(v) of the Act. The two rulings cited by Mr. Aravamudha Aiyangar and a number of other cases which will be adverted to immediately clearly bring the case of this description under section 7(v) of the Court-Fees Act.

Counsel for the petitioners next argued that in any event the case is not governed by section 7(v)(e) of the Act as the subject-matter in dispute is not the house itself but something less namely the right of the defendants to remain in the house. According to him section 7(v)(e) of the Act applies only when the suit is based on title and not to a case like the present where the plaintiffs revoke the licence and the dispute in the suit is only the right of the licensee to remain in the house. The basis of the argument is Mussamat Barkatunnissa Begum v. Mussamat Kaniza Fatma2. No doubt the above case lends support to his argument. The learned Judges took the view that a suit for ejectment of a licensee after revocation of the licence comes under section 7 (v) of the Court-Fees Act and the court-fee payable is according to the market-value of the subject-matter of the suit. According to them the subject-matter of the suit is the right to eject the defendants and the value of that right is the value a