1. This Rule has been obtained by defendants 1 to 5 against an order passed by the learned Munsif of the Court of Sealdah deciding an issue regarding the valuation of a suit.
2. The facts briefly are these: The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants stating that they were mere licensees with respect to a house belonging to the plaintiff and that the licence had been revoked. The plaintiff claimed possession of the property with respect to which licence had been issued on the ground that the licensees were refusing to vacate in spite of revocation of the licence. He valued his suit at Rs. 100 so far as the prayer for ejectment was concerned. There was a separate valuation for the plaintiff's claim for mesne profits. The defendants objected, stating that the case was governed by the provisions of Section 7(v) of the Court-fees Act and that the valuation should be the value of the subject-matter of the suit as provided for in that section. The learned Munsif repelled this contention holding that in a suit of this description the plaintiff could put his own valuation on the suit which if reasonable should not be interfered with. Against this decision, the defendants have moved this Court and obtained this Rule. In my opinion, this Rule should be made absolute. The suit is undoubtedly one for the recovery of possession of a house and it comes under S. 7(v); its valuation should therefore be made in one of the ways provided in the aforesaid clause of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act. The plaintiff is not entitled to put his own valuation in a suit of this description. The learned Munsif relied upon a decision of a single Judge of this Court reported in the notes portion of (Basiram Christian v. Ganesh Chandra Das Gupta), 24 C.W.N 167. The material portion of the decision as reported is in the following terms:
“In a suit for ejectment (of a licensee) if the value of the suit could be the value of the rights which on his plaint the plaintiff seeks to recover, the Munsif has held that the value of Rs. 100 is more than sufficient for that right and I am not prepared to hold in revision that decision is wrong.”
3. With very great respect to the learned Judge who decided this case I am unable to follow the argument. If the report is a correct one, all that the learned Judge is saying is that if the suit could be valued, in the way that it has been valued, then the valuation is not unreasonable. The whole question is whether the suit could be valued in the way in which it has been valued. I am not prepared to rely upon this case as it is not in an authorised report. There is a case viz., Mt. Barkatunnissa Begum v. Kaniza Fatma, reported in 6 Pat. 631 : (A.I.R (14) 1927 Pat. 140), which seems to take a similar view. The Bombay High Court, however, has taken a different view in the case of Ratilal Manilal v. Chandulal Chhotalal, A.I.R (84) 1947 Bom. 482 : (49 Bom. L.R 652). I am not bound by either of these decisions but I prefer to follow the decision of the Bombay High Court. The suit is clearly one for the recovery of possession of a house and the subject-matter of the suit is the house. In the Patna case it seems to have been held that the subject-matter of a similar suit is something other than land and that it was the right of the licensee which the plaintiff sought to set aside. I cannot appreciate this view. After a licence has been revoked all that the plaintiff requires is the recovery of the premises and that it seems to me, would be the subject-matter of the suit.
4. The plaintiff in the present case seems (seeks?) for nothing more and I hold that the subject-matter of the suit is the premises sought to be recovered. In this connection I would refer to the provisions of Section 7(xi)(cc) of the Court fees Act. There a special provision has been made for the recovery of immovable property by a landlord from his tenant including a tenant holding over after the determination of the tenancy. Now, if this provision had not been there, a suit by a landlord for recovery of possession of land from a tenant holding over after the tenancy had been determined would have been governed by cl. (v) of S. 7. The Legislature thought fit to provide that such a case will not be governed by cl. (v) and it made a provision in cl. (xi) regarding court-fees payable in such a case. There is no corresponding provision made by the Legislature in respect of a licensee whose licence has been revoked. It seems therefore that the Legislature intended that in the case of a licensee the valuation of the suit should be governed by the provisions of cl. (v) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act.
5. In these circumstances I hold that the decision of the learned Munsif is wrong and I set aside the decision on this issue and direct that the learned Munisf should dispose of the case on the basis of this decision and in the light of the observations made above.
6. The Rule is made absolute. There will be no order for costs.
D.H
7. Rule made absolute.