JUDGMENT Sen, J. - The only question which arises in this Rule is whether the court-fees paid by the Plaintiff in the suit out of which this application arises is sufficient. 2. Briefly put the facts are these: 3. The Plaintiff Petitioner Baidya Nath Ghosh is the landlord. The land was originally leased out to one Rajmahishi Dasi and one of the terms of the kabuliyat was that the tenancy would be liable to forfeiture if she transferred her tenancy right in any manner. Rajniahishi Dasi is dead and her interest is represented by opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4. The Plaintiff's case is that, in breach of the covenant against alienation, the tenancy rights under the lease were transferred to the opposite party No. 1, Bajranglal Surekha. I should have mentioned before that the rent payable under the lease to the Plaintiff was Rs. 6 per annum. 4. Upon coining to know of the alienation, the Plaintiff on June 1, 1946, served a notice upon the opposite party No. 1 and the other opposite parties, expressing his intention of determining the lease, on the ground that it had been forfeited by reason of the breach of the covenant against alienation. 5. On June 12, 1946, the present suit was instituted and the Plaintiff paid court-fees on Rs. 90, that is to say, 15 times 6 rupees, which latter amount was, as I have stated before, the rent payable to the Plaintiff for the land in suit. This amount was paid obviously on the ground that the amount of court-fees payable for the suit was governed by the provisions of Section 7v(a) of the Court-fees Act. The transferee opposite party objected to this valuation and the learned Munsif appointed a commissioner to enquire and report on two matters, viz., (a) the market value of the land and (b) the nett profits which have arisen from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. The commissioner has made his report and therein he has stated what the nett profits the land might have yielded during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint and the learned Munsif has accepted that valuation and directed the Plaintiff to put in additional court-fees. It is against this order that the present Rule was issued. 6. Two alternative contentions were raised in support of the Rule. It is against this order that the present Rule was issued. 6. Two alternative contentions were raised in support of the Rule. First, it is argued that so far as court-fees were concerned the matter should be controlled by the provisions of Section 7xi(cc) of the Court-fees Act, which is in the following terms: 7. In suits between the landlord and tenant-- (cc) for the recovery of immoveable property from a tenant including a tenant holding over after the determination of a tenancy, according to the amount of the rent of the immoveable property to which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. 8. Now, if this suit was one which was restricted to a suit against the original tenant, then undoubtedly the provisions of Section 7xi(cc) of the Court-fees Act would apply. This has been held in the case of Gobindakumar Sur v. Mohinimohan Sen (1929) ILR 57 Cal. 349. It was held in this case that the word "tenant" includes an ex-tenant, that is a person who would have been a tenant but for the termination of the tenancy either by forfeiture or by a notice to quit. So far as the tenant-Defendants are concerned court-fees payable would be on the sum of Rs. 6 only. The matter here, however, is complicated by the fact that the suit has been instituted for recovery of the property not only against the ex-tenant, but also against the transferee from the ex-tenant who has been treated as a trespasser. 9. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the transferee contends that the amount of court-fees payable will have to be determined by reference not to Section 7xi(cc) of the Court-fees Act, but by reference to Section 7v(a) of the aforesaid Act. The learned advocate appearing in support of the Rule argues that, even if this be the case, court-fees which the Plaintiff has paid are sufficient as the amount of fifteen times the rent payable for the previous year, which is the same as fifteen times the nett profits which have arisen from the land during the year previous to the presentation of the plaint. 10. 10. Section 7v(a) of the Court-fees Act provides that the count-fees payable in the suits mentioned therein would be according to the value of the subject matter of the suit-- Such value shall be deemed to be fifteen times the nett profits which have arisen from the land etc.,...or if the Court sees reason to think that such profits have been wrongly estimated, fifteen times such amount as the Court may assess as such profits or according to the market value of the land.... 11. The learned advocate for the transferee opposite party contends that the words nett profits do not mean nett profits derived by the landlord from the land leased out but mean nett profits which the land was capable of yielding if let out or used to its best advantage and he says that the original tenants were getting rent at a such higher rate from the sub-tenants and that these rates should be taken into account in estimating the nett profits which have arisen from the land. 12. I am unable to accept this contention and no authority has been placed before me in support of it. Ordinarily the nett profit arising out of land leased out would, in my opinion* mean the nett profit which the landlord gets from the tenant by way of rent after excluding collection charges, taxes, etc., which the landlord may have to pay. The Court below has not held that the landlord has let the land at an unduly low rate of rent. 13. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Plaintiff was correct in estimating the nett profits arising out of the land as being Us. 6 per annum. He has paid court-fees at fifteen times this amount and in view of what has been said above I hold that the court-fees paid are sufficient. The order of the learned Munsif is, therefore, set aside and the Rule is made absolute with costs--bearing fee in this Court being assessed at two gold mohurs.