Ram Raj Tewari v. Girnandan Bhagat

Sir John Edge, C.J and Aikman, J.:— In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued to eject certain tenants at fixed rates on account of acts alleged to have been done by them inconsistent with the purposes for which the land was let. The suit was one which came under cl. (b) of s. 93 of Act No. XII of 1881. The case went in appeal to the Court of the District Judge, and a question arose before him as to whether the case was appealable under s. 189 of Act No. XII of 1881. The annual rent was Rs. 81-5-0, and the plaintiff, who was the appellant in the Court of the District Judge, had valued his suit for the purposes of the Court-fee at Rs. 81-5-0. The learned District Judge considered that the valuation put by the plaintiff upon his suit was the valuation which [64] determined the right of appeal in the case and dismissed the appeal, holding that it did not lie. So far as this case is concerned s. 189 of Act. No. XII of 1881 gave a right of appeal if the value of the subject-matter exceeded Rs. 100. Having regard to s. 8 of Act No. VII of 1887, we have to see whether the suit was one of those referred to in paragraphs 5, 6, 9 or 10, cl. (d) of the Court-fees Act, 1870. As the Court-fees Act, 1870, was undoubtedly enacted with the object of specifying the Court-fees to be paid in every class of suit, we must, if we can, so read it as to make it include the suit in question here. This suit undoubtedly was one for the possession of land. It was a suit by a landlord to eject his tenants and to recover from them that possession of the land which they were entitled to as tenants at fixed rates. We have carefully gone through the Court-fees Act of 1870, and we are unable to find, either in the body of the Act or in the schedules, any provision which would apply to a suit of this kind, unless it is to be found in the opening portions of paragraph 5 of s. 7. Paragraph 5 begins thus:—“In suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens—according to the value of the subject-matter.” What follows these words applies to cases of which this is not one, and provides for the ascertainment of value by means which would not be applicable here. We are accordingly of opinion that we must apply the words which we have just quoted from paragraph 5 to this case in preference to holding that the Court-fees Act makes no provisions for Court-fees in suits of this kind. The result is that in suits under s. 93, cl. (b), the value for the purposes of Court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction have to be computed in the same way, namely, by ascertaining the value of the subject-matter. The subject-matter here cannot be treated as the land itself, as the landlord, plaintiff, has, through his tenants, proprietary possession, and what is really sought is to free the land from the possession of the tenants holding as tenants at fixed rates, that is, to get rid of the tenants and their tenant-rights and that is a relief the value of which is easily ascertainable. The question of jurisdiction was not decided on these lines. We set aside the decree of the Court below, and remand this case under s. 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the appeal to be [65] disposed of according to law. It may of course be found that the value of what we may call the tenant-right, in this case does not exceed Rs. 100, in which case the appeal to the Court below would not lie. That is a matter which must be gone into. The costs of this appeal will abide the result.

Cause remanded.