A suit by a tenant against the landlord and a third person for possession of a property from which he had been wrongfully evicted is governed by Section 7(xi)(e) of the Court Fees Act, and the court fee is to be computed on the amount of the rent of the immovable property payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint.

Sen, J—The Plaintiff questions the order returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court in this revision. The lower Court held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the market value of the property in suit was more than Rs. 500/- and that the Plaintiff was liable' to pay ad valorem' court-fee.

2. The Plaintiff claims to be tenant of the premises in suit. He seeks possession and injunction. He valued the relief for possession at Rs. 1,200/- being one year's rent, the rent being Rs. 100/- per mensem.

3. The suit was originally filed against the-landlady Shrimati Mankuar Bai (now Defendant No. l) alone. Later he joined Seth Ram Gopal Maheshwari (Defendant No. 2) on the following allegation: The Plaintiff apprehends that with a view to defeat his claim in suit the Defendant No. 1 is trying to transfer the possession of the demised 'Kothi' to the Defendant No. 2, Ram Gopal Maheshwari. Any such contemplated transfer is not binding on the Plaintiff but with a view to obtain a full and final adjudication of the disputed claim involved in the suit the Defendant No. 2 has been impleaded.

4. The case of the Defendant No. 1 is that the premises were not let out to Seth Ram Gopal Maheshwari. In para 2 of the written statement of the latter, it is stated: The answering Defendant entered into partnership with the Defendant No. 1 to run a Press and to publish a daily newspaper called 'Nava Bharat' and to start that work in the premises in suit. An agreement of partnership was executed by both the parties to the effect containing, all the terms of the partnership agreed upon between them on the 1st December 1949 which was registered on the 20th January 1950. In pursuance of this agreement both the Defendants started their work in the premises in suit except the 7 rooms and the 1 verandah in which the Government is having its godown for stocking foodgrains from the 1st December 1949 and are carrying on their work since then.

To the same effect is the statement of the landlady.

5. A suit by a tenant to recover the occupancy of immovable property from which he has been illegally ejected by the landlord is governed by Section 7, para (xi), clause (e). Court-fee is to be computed on the amount of the rent of the immovable property payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. In any other case for possession, court-fee is payable according to Section 7, para (v) of the Court-fees Act. As the property in suit is a house, the question is whether court-fee is payable under Section 7, para (v), clause (e) or Section 7, para (xi), clause (e) of the Act.

6. A preliminary objection was taken regarding the maintainability of the revision. Reference was made to - ' Samsherkhan v. Abdul Sattarkhan, 1926 AIR(Nag) 290 (A); - ' Rajjupuri v. Dewa, 1933 AIR(Nag) 221(1)(B) and - 'Kisan Gopal Tejmal v. Baliram,1918 AIR(Nag) 51 (C). In the present case the question of court-fee was also involved. The order in respect of the court-fees could only be rectified in revision. In all the three cases quoted above, the question of court-fees was not involved. I overrule the objection.

7. I have examined the pleadings and I am of opinion 7 of the Act. Defendant No. 2 Is said to be in occupation of the premises by virtue of a certain agreement of partnership with Defendant No. 1. The character of the suit is not changed by the joinder of Defendant No. 2. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant landlady is in illegal occupation and he is entitled to its possession. There is no conflict of interests between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2. A tenant cannot be compelled to pay court-fee on the market value of the property merely because another person has been brought on the premises. The real possession in such a case is of the landlord and not of the third party. In - 'Atmaram v. Sitaram' Civil Revn No. 444 of 1949, D/-24-3-1950 (Nag)(D), a similar question was raised. The suit was by a tenant against the landlord and anoth