Judgment · High Court

This revision petition is at the instance of the defendants. Heard Sri N Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners as we ll as Md S Ali, learned counsel for the opposite party. This revision petition has been filed by the defendants challeng ing the legality of the order dated 17.02.2011, passed by the learned Munsiff No . 2, in Title Suit No. 150 of 2010, rejecting the objection of the defendants ab out the valuation of the suit. According to the learned Munsiff, the prayer of t he plaintiff is covered by Section 7 (v) (xi) (cc) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 a nd as per the said provision, if the suit is for recovery of immovable property from the tenant, the suit can be valued at the annual rent of the property. Sri Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted tha t the suit is essentially covered by Section 7 (v) (d) of the Court Fees Act, 18 70. As per this provision of law, the suit has to be assessed at the market valu e of the land if there is any prayer for passing a decree for possession of the land. There is no dispute that one of the prayers is to restore the po ssession of plaintiff over the suit land. However, from the submissions made in the plaint, prima facie it is a case of recovery of land from the tenant under A ssam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955. Sri Ali, learned counsel fo r the opposite party submitted that earlier also a suit between the parties was filed under Assam Rent Control Act, but the suit was dismissed on the ground tha t the suit is covered by 1955 Act and not by 1972 Rent Control Act. On the other hand, the Sri Choudhury submitted that the defendan ts/petitioners are the tenants at sufferance and their relationship with the pla intiff is not that of landlord and tenants. In my considered opinion, if the tri al Court comes to a conclusion that the defendants are essentially not the tenan ts of the plaintiff and the suit is not covered by Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955, the Court may order for payment of deficit Court fee. With the aforesaid observations, this revision petition stands d isposed of.