Tenancy right valuation for court fee must follow annual rent or letting value, not market value of the building.

Where a suit challenges an allotment order and seeks injunction against delivery of possession, the court fee depends on the real subject-matter of the relief. The text states that, although a declaration with consequential relief may fall under Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, valuation must follow the consequential relief where the dispute concerns an immovable property right capable of valuation. A tenancy or leasehold right is treated as immovable property, and if the suit is in substance about the right to occupy the building as a tenant, the valuation is not based on the bungalow's market value. Court fee is therefore payable on annual rent or letting value, subject to the statutory minimum.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a suit challenging an allotment order and seeking a permanent injunction against delivery of possession, court fee was payable on the market value of the bungalow or on the annual rent or letting value of the tenancy right in the building.

Analysis: A suit for declaration with consequential relief falls under Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, but where the relief is with reference to immovable property and is capable of valuation, the value of the consequential relief governs. The expression "immovable property" includes not only the building itself but also benefits arising out of it. A tenancy or leasehold right is a right to enjoy the building and is itself an immovable property. When the dispute is really about the right to occupy the building as a tenant under an allotment order, the subject-matter of the suit is the tenancy right and not the building as such. Since tenancy right in a building is not capable of valuation in the ordinary sense, the valuation for court fee cannot be fixed on the market value of the bungalow. The provisions relating to suits for possession of land or buildings under Section 7(v), Section 7(v-A) and Section 7(v-B) do not directly apply, but the principle applied in similar cases justifies valuation by annual rent or annual letting value, subject to the statutory minimum.

Conclusion: Court fee was not payable on the market value of the bungalow. It was payable on the annual rent or letting value of the building, subject to the minimum prescribed by law, and the revision succeeded to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the real subject-matter of the suit is tenancy right in a building, the consequential relief is valued by the annual rent or letting value, not by the market value of the building.

---