Court Approves Defendant's Request to Amend Statement for Court Fee Issue in Landlord-Tenant Property Suit.

The HC allowed the revision, permitting the 6th defendant to amend the written statement to address the court fee issue. The court held that the suit should be governed by Section 7, Clause (XI) (cc) of the Court Fees Act, which pertains to suits between landlords and tenants for recovering property from a tenant holding over. The HC emphasized the distinction between a landlord and a lessee for court fee purposes, affirming that the court fee payable aligns with the contractual rights in lease agreements.

---

---

Issues:
Interpretation of Court Fees Act - Section 7, Clause (XI) (cc) - Suit between landlord and tenant - Amendment of written statement to add plea - Privity of contract between original lessee and subsequent lessee - Rights of lessee in obtaining possession - Distinction between landlord and lessee in terms of court fees payable.

Analysis:
The case involved a revision against an order of the District Munsif, where the 6th defendant sought to amend the written statement to add a plea regarding the court fee payable in a suit for possession against a former tenant holding over. The 6th defendant argued that the suit should fall under Section 7, Clause (V) of the Court Fees Act, necessitating court fee payment based on the market value of the property.

The Munsif, following a previous decision, held that the court fee payable was under Section 7, Clause (XI) (cc) of the Court Fees Act, which relates to suits between landlords and tenants for the recovery of property from a tenant holding over. The 6th defendant appealed this decision, leading to the High Court's review.

The High Court analyzed the scope of Section 7, Clause (XI) of the Court Fees Act, emphasizing that it pertains to suits based on a contract of lease between landlord and tenant. The court noted that the amendment to include Clause (cc) was intended to exclude such suits from Clause (V) and restrict the application to lease contracts.

Referring to precedents, the High Court highlighted that a lessee has the right to seek possession from a former lessee holding over, standing in the shoes of the lessor. The court differentiated between a landlord and a lessee, stating that a lessee cannot be equated to a landlord for court fee purposes unless there is an assignment of the landlord's interest.

The court further discussed the requirement of privity of contract between landlord and tenant for the application of Clause (cc) of Section 7, emphasizing that a subsequent lessee cannot be considered a tenant of the original lessor. The judgment underscored that the purpose of Clause (cc) is to provide a simple remedy for landlords to regain possession based on contractual rights.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revision, permitting the 6th defendant to amend the written statement as requested. The court held that the suit would be governed by Section 7, Clause (XI) of the Court Fees Act, affirming the decision regarding the court fee payable in suits between landlords and tenants for the recovery of property from a tenant holding over.

---