The Judgment of the Court was as follows:—
The question arising for decision in this Rule is whether or not the Courts below have rightly refused to allow the Plaintiff, who is the Petitioner before this Court, to value his suit under the provisions of sec. 7, para. (11), sub-cl. (cc) of the Court Fees Act. The tenancy that had existed and had been held by the Defendant had been terminated; and the suit was one for ejectment of the Defendant as a trespasser. The Plaintiff sought to value his suit under the clause referred to above on the assertion that for the purposes of the valuation of the suit the Defendant was still a tenant. There is nothing in the wording of the sub-clause to lead to any such conclusion. That sub-clause reads as follows:— “For the recovery of immoveable property from a tenant including a tenant holding over after the determination of the tenancy.” Once the tenancy has been determined the person who had been a tenant became a trespasser on holding on, and he could only be a tenant holding over provided such holding over was with the consent, express or implied, o? the landlord. It is possible that the ??? to reduce the court-fee payable in suits such as the present. But that view may also be doubted considering that the legislature thought it necessary to add that the term “tenant” would include a tenant who held over. It seems as if there can be no room for holding that the legislature intended to include under the term “tenant”. persons who had ceased to be tenants altogether. However, we can only act on the words to be found in this statute and as the Defendant does not fall within the category of tenants or tenants holding over after the determination of the tenancy, the Courts below were right in holding that the sub-clause referred to above does not apply, and the suit must be valued otherwise than under its provisions.
The Rule is, accordingly, discharged with costs—hearing-fee, two gold mohurs.
Let the record be sent down at once.
P.C