Judgment :- 1. O.S. No. 245 of 1951 of the Court of the District Munsiff of Cochin is a suit for the eviction of a verumpattam tenant after the expiry of the term of six years granted by the lease-deed (Ext. A) in pursuance of S.8(1)(f) of the Cochin Verumpattamdars Act, VIII of 1118, and the only question that arises for consideration is whether the court fee payable should be computed under sub-s. (5)(b) or sub-s. (10)(1)(d) of S. 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act, 1125. 2. The relevant portion of sub-s. (10)(1) reads as follows: "(10)(1) In suits for specific performance of contract or, for recovery of immovable property including trees when such suits are based on a contract, (d) in the case of a lease granted or to be granted to those who have no right of permanent occupancy. According to one-fifth of the aggregate amount of rent payable therein together with the premium or fine if any;" In order to attract the provision extracted above the tenant should not have a right of permanent occupancy and it has hence to be decided whether the Cochin Verumpattamdars Act, VIII of 1118, does or does not confer on verumpattam tenants a right of permanent occupancy. 3. The Preamble to the Act says: "Whereas it is deemed expedient to confer on certain terms and conditions, fixity of tenure to verumpattom tenants"S.4 provides: "Notwithstanding any law, or custom or contract to the contrary every verumpattomdar shall have fixity of tenure in respect of his holding and shall not be evicted therefrom except as provided in S. 8 of this Act"and S.8 enumerates the grounds on which an eviction of a verumpattamdar will be possible subsequent to the passing of the Act. The two lower courts have taken the view, and in our opinion rightly that a verumpattam tenant since the passing of the Cochin Verumpattamdars Act, VIII of 1118, should be considered as a person enjoying a right to permanent occupancy and that the provision of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act, 1125, applicable to the present suit is S.3(5)(b) which deals with tenants who have a right to permanent occupancy and provides for the payment of court fee according to the market value of the subject matter, such value, in cases of dispute, being taken to be "ten times the annual gross profits of such land, building or garden where it is capable of yielding annual profits minus the assessment paid, if any, to the Government". 4. The question agitated before us has also come up for decision in C.R.P. No. 1030 of 1951 and Subramonia Iyer, J. has held, quite categorically, that a verumpattam tenant since the passing of the Cochin Verumpattamdars Act, VIII of 1118, "has a right to permanent occupancy and that being so the only applicatory provision is S.3 Cl. 5(b) and there can be no doubt about it". 5. We are not prepared to say that a permanent right in the context of land tenures implies a right of occupancy indefeasible under all circumstances and that the surviving possibility of an eviction under one or the other of the six grounds specified in S.8 of the Cochin Verumpattamdars Act VIII of 1118, destroys the impress of fixity or permanency so manifestly conferred by that enactment. 6. The market value of the property appears to be in dispute and so the court fee payable in this case should be ten times the annual gross profits less the assessment paid to the Government. The learned District Munsiff has proceeded on the basis that the profits will amount to Rs. 1,000 per year, and come to the conclusion that the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of his court and should hence be returned for presentation to the proper court. There is no foundation for the assumption that the annual gross profits will amount to Rs. 1,000 except an exaggerated claim in the plaint - prayer (a) - for future mesne profits at that rate. Ext. A only provides for an annual pattam of Rs. There is no foundation for the assumption that the annual gross profits will amount to Rs. 1,000 except an exaggerated claim in the plaint - prayer (a) - for future mesne profits at that rate. Ext. A only provides for an annual pattam of Rs. 40 and the sole evidence in the case (D.W. 4) is that the yield of the property consists of about 2,000 cocoanuts per year. 7. The question of court fee was raised in this case for the first time by an amendment to the written statement after the entire evidence was recorded. The petitioner's learned counsel submitted that his client should have been allowed to amend the plaint and we see no reason why the learned District Munsiff should not allow him to do so and then proceed to dispose of the case himself as the gross profits calculated either on the basis of the lease-deed or the evidence in the case cannot possibly exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of his court. Order accordingly.