Court fee valuation for possession suits turns on privity of contract, not a broader landlord label, in lessee disputes.

Section 7(11)(cc) of the Court Fees Act applies only to suits based on the contractual landlord-tenant relationship and the cheaper valuation intended for a landlord recovering possession after termination of tenancy. An original lessee is not treated as a landlord merely because a later tenant is in possession, since there is no privity of contract and the term "landlord" cannot be extended beyond that statutory setting. The suit for possession by the lessee against a tenant holding over therefore fell outside Section 7(11)(cc) and was governed by Section 7(5) on market-value valuation.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit by a lessee seeking possession from a tenant holding over is governed by Section 7(11)(cc) of the Court Fees Act as a suit between landlord and tenant, or by Section 7(5) of that Act as a suit for possession valued on market value.

Analysis: The Court held that Section 7(11)(cc) applies to suits founded on the contractual relationship of landlord and tenant and is intended to provide a cheaper remedy where the landlord seeks recovery from his tenant after termination of the tenancy. A lessee is not an assignee of the landlord's interest and does not become the landlord merely by reason of holding a lease. The expression "landlord" in this context cannot be extended to include an original lessee suing against a subsequent tenant, because there is no privity of contract between them. The statutory scheme does not cover suits involving questions beyond the bare landlord-tenant relationship, and such matters fall outside Section 7(11)(cc).

Conclusion: The suit was held to be governed by Section 7(5) of the Court Fees Act and not by Section 7(11)(cc).

---