Kondavati Naganna vs Matukumilli Satyanarayana and another

V. Srinivasachari, J.—This is a revision preferred against the order 1 of the District Munsif, Amalapuram, in I. A. No. 225 of 1955 in O. S. No, 104 of 1953. The 6th defendant is the petitioner- before us. The plaintiff is a suit for possession as against defendant 1 alleging that he had obtained a lease of the suit properties from defendants 2 to 5 for one year 1953-54. He further alleged that the 1st defendant was a prior (sic)essee under a lease granted by defendants 2 to 5 for 1952-53.

The 1st defendant is said to be a benamidar for the 6th defendant.'' The plaintiff claimed possession from the 1st defendant as from a tenant holding over. Defendants 1 and 6 pleaded that they had been given a three-year lease from 1953-56 including the suit year. The plaintiff paid court-fee u/s 7, Clause (XI) (CC) of the Court Fees Act.

The contention raised by the 6th defendant was that the plaintiff was only a lessee from the owners of the property and if he sought to get possession from a forme tenant holding over, his suit could not be regarded as a. suit for eviction by a (sic)landlord as against a tenant. The contention was that such a suit would fall u/s 7 Clause (V) of the Court Fees Act and therefore the court fee payable would be on the market value of the property. He prayed that he might be permitted to amend the written statement so as to add this plea.

The Munsiff following a decision of Bell, J, in Janab E.M. Ghulam Dastagir Saheb Vs. Marudai Pillai and Another, held that in (sic)a case of this kind the court-fee payable was only u/s 7, Clause (XI) (cc) of the Court fees Act and that the court-fee paid was sufficient. He, therefore dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the above order the 6th defendant has come up to this Court.

Section 7 para (XI) of the Court Fees Act relates to suits between landlords and tenants and Clause (cc) therein speaks of a suit for the recovery of immoveable property from a tenant including a (sic)tenant holding over after the termination of the (sic)tenancy.'' This paragraph, therefore prescribes the court-fee in certain specified classes of suits between landlord and tenant, that is to say, clauses (a), (b) and (cc) relate to suits by landlords against tenants and clauses (c), (d). (e) and (f) relate to suits by tenants against landlords.

From the language of the section it would be clear that the scope of suits coming under paragraph (XI) therefore is restricted in its operation. Clause (cc) was inserted by the amending Act, Act VI of 1905. The effect of this amendment was clearly to take such suits out of clause (v). Paragraph (XI), therefore, excludes suits brought on the basis of title and only relates to a suit based on a contract of lease simpliciter

A suit based on alleged relationship of land lord and tenant comes within Section 7 (XI) (cc) of the Court Fees Act. This clause is intended to cover all cases where the landlord seeks to recover the property from a person who has, been his tenant and whose tenancy has come to an end. The words ''including a tenant'' etc.; after the word tenant amplify the meaning of the terms ''tenant'' rather than restrict it. The Lower Court has based its decision upon a judgment of Bell, J. as stated already, in 1948 1 Mad LJ 338: Janab E.M. Ghulam Dastagir Saheb Vs. Marudai Pillai and Another,

That was a case where the tenancy had terminated by efflux of time and the Municipal Council which was the lessor agreed to renew the (sic)ease and passed resolution to that effect and got the renewal confirmed by the Government. The tenant continued to be in occupation. Later the Government revoked the order relating to the confirmation of the renewal. The Municipality, therefore, informed the tenant that he could not continue in possession.

It held a public auction wherein the lease of the premises was granted to the plaintiff. This lease was for a period of 3 years''. The new lessee soug(sic) the assistance of the Council to eject the form tenant who was in occupation, but as assistance (sic) refused, he filed a suit against the former ten(sic) in occupation impleading the Municipal Count also. The plaintiff valued the suit as one for p(sic) session by a landlord against a tenant.

Objection being raised, the trial Court a(sic) considering the respective contentions held that court-fee payable was u/s 7 (XI) (cc) the Act. The matter came up in revision to High Court and the learned Judge after review the authorities placed before him, expressed opinion that the lessee who seeks to eject a form lessee stood in the shoes of the lessor. If the le(sic) had brought a suit of this kind it would be cove(sic) by Clause (CC) of Paragraph (XI) of Section 7 the Court-fees Act. If that was the case, the same principle w(sic) apply if such a suit were brought by a lessee, held that by force of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the word ''landlord'' would cove lessee. The learned Judge referred to a decision the Madras High Court in Achayya v. Hanuman rayudu, ILR 14 Mad 269 (B). In that case plaintiff sought to recover possession of the leased to him by defendant No. 1 who was ad(sic) (sic)tedly the Agraharamdar and the owner of the la(sic) The defendant No. 2 claimed occupancy r(sic) An objection was raised that the lessee could sue to eject. The High Court held that as lessor the owner of the land was entitled to on proof of title, so could the lessee claim (sic) him to obtain possession on proof of such title of his own lease.

This decision of the Madras High (sic) was followed by the Allahabad High Court in (sic) Fazihzzaman v. Anwar Hussain, AIR 1932 All (C). What the learned Judges in ILR 14 Mad (B), and the above Allahabad case laid down that a lessee is entitled to enforce his right to (sic) possession of the land leased to him, by ejecting(sic) ther in possession of the property who is he(sic) under the lessor. It has to pe observed tha(sic) question as to whether such a suit were fil(sic) should be treated as suit between a landlord tenant or as a suit for possession governed by(sic) (sic)tion 7, Clause (V) of the Court Fees Act di(sic) arise in those cases.

The short question, therefore, is as to (sic)ther the word ''landlord'' occurring in paragrap(sic) could be deemed to include a lessee from the (sic)lord. For this purpose Section 109 of the Tr(sic) of Property Act may be referred to, which (sic) of the rights of a lessor''s transferee where the transfers the property leased. It has to be s(sic) way pointed out that a person who obtai(sic) lease from the landlord cannot be regarded assignee, for a lease is not an assignment of pr(sic) Although the lessee is entitled to have pos(sic) of the property leased and for that purpose pursue the same remedy as against a pe(sic) occupation, as the landlord would do, his p(sic) cannot be equated to that of a landlord with(sic). meaning of clause (cc), paragraph (XI) of Se(sic) of the Court-Fees Act. It would be diffe(sic) the landlord assigns his interest in which a(sic) assignee ox the transferee becomes the la(sic) himself by operation of law. All the rights(sic) landlord are transferred. Therefore if after (sic)signment the transferee files a suit for ejecti(sic) would be regarded as a suit by a landlord a tenant.

Paragraph (XI) (cc) clearly contei(sic) there being a privity of contract of landlo(sic) tenant as between the parties to the suit. could not be any privity of contract between an (sic)riginal lessee and a subsequent lessee. It may be (sic)seful to Consider in this connection as to whether lessee''s representative or assign could be regarded (sic)i tenant of the landlord. This question came up (sic)r consideration before the Madras High Court in (sic)adapalle Narashnham v. Dronamraju Seetha Rama (sic)hirthy, ILR 31 Mad 163 (D). The learned Judge (sic)eld that while a lessor could concert a tenant by (sic)ffrerance into a tenant, the representatives could (sic)t he regarded as tenants by sufferance, but would (sic)regarded as mere trespassers.

The principle underlying clause (cc) para(sic) (sic)aph (XI) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act is to (sic)table a landlord to get possession of his property (sic) a cheap remedy endeavouring to obtain his (sic)hts on the basis of the contractual rights as between himself and his tenant. This paragraph does (sic)t envisage suits wherein complicated questions (sic)t may arise between other parties apart from (sic) bare questions of tenancy. If parties other than (sic)lants are parties to the suit, then such suits would governed by Section 7 (5) of the Court Fees Act.

While, therefore, with respect differing from (sic), J., in the view taken by him, we hold that suit would be governed by Section 7, Clause of the Court Fees Act.

The revision is allowed with costs. The (sic)itioner is permitted to amend his written state- (sic)at as prayed for. The case will go back to the (sic)er Court for further proceedings.