ORDER Mootham, J. - This is an application by the Chief Inspector of Stamps for revision, under S. 6B, Court-fees Act, 1870, as amended in its application to the United Provinces (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), of an order of the learned Small Cause Court Judge of Allahabad in civil Appeal NO. 301 of 1944, dated 16-3-1945. 2. The facts giving rise, to this application are briefly as follows. On 1-11-1939, Mt. Earn Kali Devi executed in favour of Pandit Niranjan Lal Bhargava a lease of a building for a term of four years at a monthly rental of Rs. 220. On the expiry of the lease, the tenant failed to give vacant possession and the landlord accordingly filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Allahabad for possession of the demised property and for certain other reliefs with which we are not now concerned. A court-fee of Rs. 259-6-0 was paid by the plaintiff, this being admittedly the correct fee payable under cl. (cc) of sub-s. (xi) of S. 7 of the Act. 3. At the trial of the suit, it was contended by the tenant that, as a consequence of an order made by the District Magistrate under sub-r. (4) of R. 81, Defence of India Rules, the plaintiff was not enticed to possession. This submission found favour with the learned Munsif who, by a judgment dated 5-7-1944, gave the plaintiff a decree for ejectment, but directed inter alia that the decree should remain suspended for such time as the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate remained in force. With this decree the plaintiff was dissatisfied, and she accordingly filed an appeal in which she challenged so much of the order of the lower Court as prevented her from obtaining immediate possession of the property. Her contention was that the condition or proviso which was attached by the learned Munsif to the decree for ejectment was illegal, and that the decree should be modified accordingly. 4. Upon her memorandum of appeal, the plaintiff-appellant paid a court-fee of Rs. 18-12-0 being the amount which was payable if the appeal was one to which cl. (iii) of item 17 of Sch. 2 to the Act applied, and it is with regard to the amount of this fee that the present application has arisen. 5. 4. Upon her memorandum of appeal, the plaintiff-appellant paid a court-fee of Rs. 18-12-0 being the amount which was payable if the appeal was one to which cl. (iii) of item 17 of Sch. 2 to the Act applied, and it is with regard to the amount of this fee that the present application has arisen. 5. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that in a case such as the present the court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal is the same as that which is payable upon the original plaint, and this it is said must be so upon a proper construction of the provisions of S. 7 of the Act read with the definition of the word 'suit' in S. 2 of the Act. 6. In my opinion this contention must prevail, the matter being concluded by authority. In Abdul Haq and Others Vs. Shamshuddin and Others, AIR 1941 All 357 it was held that as a consequence of the word 'suit' being now defined in cl. (iv) of S. 2 of the Act as including a first or second appeal from a decree in a suit, the court-fee payable in respect of an appeal arising out of a suit against a mortgagee for recovery of the property mortgaged must be calculated according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage; that is to say, it must be computed in the same manner as on the plaint in the suit in which the decree was passed. Abdul Haq and Others Vs. Shamshuddin and Others, AIR 1941 All 357 was considered and approved in Kishen Lal Vs. B. Preduman Kishen Singh, AIR 1946 All 303 a decision of a Bench of this Court, and while both cases deal with the court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal in suits which fall under sub-s. (ix) of S. 7 of the Act, I can see no distinction in principle between such cases and those which fall (as does the original suit in this case) under sub-s. (xi) of the same section. 7. I am therefore of opinion that this application must be allowed, with costs; and under sub-s. (ii) of S. 6B of the Act I declare that the proper court-fee has not been paid on the memo, randum of appeal and that the amount of deficiency in court-fees is Rs. 240-10-0.