V. B. RAJU, J. ( 1 ) IN a suit filed by the applicant for possession of certain parts of house property from his alleged landlords namely defendants No. 1 2 and 3 and from two other persons namely defendants Nos. 4 and 5 the District Court of Surat held that the suit fell under sec. 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act and not under sec. 7 (xi) (e ). The Judge therefore passed the following order :-THE learned trial Judge should record evidence on the point as to the market value of the suit property and then ask the plaintiff to pay the necessary court fees on the market value of the suit property In case the plaintiff does not pay the necessary court fees within the time fixed by the trial Court it shall pass such orders as it thinks fit. ( 2 ) IN case the trial court gives the finding that the market value of the suit property exceeds Rs. 10 0 (Rupees ten thousand) it shall return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court ( 3 ) IT should be understood by the parties concerned and the Court below that the findings on merits remain undisturbed ( 4 ) THIS order is challenged in revision and it is contended that the view taken by the District Court that the suit fell under sec. 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act is erroneous. ( 5 ) THE plaint is for the recovery of possession by an alleged statutory tenant from his alleged landlords defendants Nos. 1 to 3. In the plaint it is also stated that forcible possession was taken away by the landlords in the absence of the plaintiff and given to defendants Nos. 4 and 5. According to the plaintiff therefore defendants Nos. 4 and 5 are persons inducted into possession of the parts of the suit premises in the absence of the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge gave a finding that the plaintiff is a statutory tenant. But he did not go into the question of court-fees. In appeal the learned District Judge however held that proper court-fees had not been paid because the suit fell under sec. 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act. Several authorities were relied on before the learned trial Judge and several authorities have been also cited before me. But he did not go into the question of court-fees. In appeal the learned District Judge however held that proper court-fees had not been paid because the suit fell under sec. 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act. Several authorities were relied on before the learned trial Judge and several authorities have been also cited before me. Sec. 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act reads as follows :-THE amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (v) In suits for the possession of land houses and gardens-according to the value of the subject matter;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 7 (xi) (e) of the Court Fees Act refers to suits between landlord and tenant to recover the occupancy of immovable property from which a tenant has been illegally ejected by the landlord. ( 6 ) WHETHER to a case like the present one clause (v) of sec. 7 applies or clause (xi) (e) of sec. 7 applies different views have been taken. In Ghulam Dastagir v. Marudai Pillai A. I. R. 1948 Madras 409 the learned Judge of the Madras High Court was considering clause (xi) (cc) of sec. 7 and he observed as follows :-SECTION 7 (v) applies generally to suits for possession. The new clause viz. c. (xi) was meant to ease the position of a landlord endeavouring to obtain his fights as between himself and his tenant and of a tenant endeavouring to obtain his from the landlord and to give both a quick easy and cheap remedy. If cl. (v) where the only one to apply it would involve very heavy court-fees. Sub-clause (cc) was intended to enable a landlord to bring a cheap suit against a tenant guilty of holding over after the determination of his tenancy. That the word tenant must not be taken to literally is to be found in numerous cases including Gobinda Kumar v. Mohinimohan (30) 57 Cal. 349 Manickam Pillai v. Ratnasami Nadar 35 M. L. J. 684 and the Privy Council case in Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd. v. Satya Niranjan Shaw 32 C. W. N 1093. Although their Lordships were dealing with the Calcutta Rent Act the analogy is not too distant. 349 Manickam Pillai v. Ratnasami Nadar 35 M. L. J. 684 and the Privy Council case in Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd. v. Satya Niranjan Shaw 32 C. W. N 1093. Although their Lordships were dealing with the Calcutta Rent Act the analogy is not too distant. ( 7 ) LEAVING this particular question aside for the moment and going back to the main contention in the lower Court as to the right of the new lessee to sue authorities going back to Achayya v. Hanumantarayudu 14 Mad. 269 show that a person in the possession of a lessee can sue in ejectment a person whom he finds in occupation of the land leased to him. In Hakim Mohd. Fazhzaman v. Anwar Hussain 30 A. L. J. 126 a Bench decided that a lessee in circumstances similar to those of the present. case was entitled to enforce the right to obtain possession of the land leased to him so that be might enjoy its usufruct because sec. 108 T P. Act provides that a lessor is bound to pat him in possession of the property and further that the benefit of the contract is annexed and goes with the lessees interest as such and can be enforced by him. Reference was made to 14 Mad. 269 where the right of a lessee to sue was assumed because he claimed under the owner of the property. ( 8 ) THE learned Judge observed that in his opinion it was unjust to hold that in such a case the plaintiff can bring his action only under clause (v) sec 7 of the Court Fees Act. The learned Judge further observed as follows :-WHERE a person obtains a lease say of a dwelling house from a lessor and finds when he desires to take possession that some stranger is there it would be monstrous to make him file a suit on the basis that he was doing anything else but stand in the shoes of the lessor. If the landlord can bring the suit cheaply under cl. (xi) (cc) why should not the lessee be entitled to do the same? If the word tenant can be extended. as it has been extended by many different Courts to include a person who is not in law a tenant at all to say that the word landlord may cover a lessee who under sec. (xi) (cc) why should not the lessee be entitled to do the same? If the word tenant can be extended. as it has been extended by many different Courts to include a person who is not in law a tenant at all to say that the word landlord may cover a lessee who under sec. 106 T. P. Act has every legal right to pursue such a remedy does not seem at all difficult. I think that the decision of the lower Court can be supported although for different reasons. It would be in my opinion a most artificial approach to the Court-fees Act to say that a valid lessee could only exercise his undoubted rights under sec. 108 T. P. Act at great cost under sec. 7 (v) Court-fees Act while the landlord if he chose to bring the same suit in ejectment could avail himself of sec. 7 (xi) (cc ). I therefore hold that the latter clause applies in the circumstances of the case. ( 9 ) THIS case was not followed in Ganesh Gopal Shmebekar v. Moreshwar Narayan Datte 53 Bom. L. R. 310. The learned counsel for the applicant also relied on Secretary of State v. Dinshaw A. I. R. 1925 Sind 275 and Abdul Rahman v. Budhu A. I. R. 1951 Patna 403. In the Sind case the following observations were made :-THE Court Fees Act being a fiscal enactment must in cases of ambiguity be construed in favour of the public. Clause (xi) refers to suits between the landlord and the tenant. It does not restrict such suits to suits between the landlord and the tenant only. There is therefore no reason why clause (xi) should be limited to suits where the landlord and the tenant alone are parties and should not apply to a suit of this nature where in order to avoid any unnecessary delay in execution proceedings the second defendant was joined as a proper party to the suit. This suit would have been equally efficacious if he had not been joined as a party. As a matter of fact he has given up possession before the date of the decree. I am of opinion that this suit has been overvalued and in the fixation of costs the plaintiff is only entitled to costs as taxed in a suit falling under sec. As a matter of fact he has given up possession before the date of the decree. I am of opinion that this suit has been overvalued and in the fixation of costs the plaintiff is only entitled to costs as taxed in a suit falling under sec. 7 clause (xi) sub-clause (e) of the Court Fees Act. ( 10 ) ON behalf of the learned counsel for the opponent reliance is placed on Furzand Ali v. Mohanth Lal Puri I. L. R. 32 Cal 268 which was followed in Palaniappa Chetti v. Sithra Velu Servai I. L. R. 31 Madras 14 and Mt. Bhagobai v. Shiamial Dwarkaprasad A. I. R. 1933 Nagpur 312 Reliance is also placed on Haladhar Pal v. Sheikh Mongal I. L. R. 1931 Cal. 333. The Calcutta Case reported in I. L. R. 32 Cal 268 supports his contention. In A. I. R. 1931 Cal. 333 cl. (xi) (cc) of sec. 7 of the Court-fees Act was considered and it was held as under :-CLAUSE 11 (cc) applied to a suit for recovery of immovable property from a tenant. When the suit is not one for recovery of immovable property from a tenant but is by one who alleges to be tenant for recovery of immovable property from persons alleged to be trespassers instigated by the landlord the clause does not apply. ( 11 ) BEFORE a suit can fall under section 7 (x) (e) it must be a suit between a landlord and tenant and further it must be a suit to recover the occupancy of immovable property from which a tenant has been illegally ejected by the landlord. Both these requisites must be satisfied before a suit can fall under sec. 7 (xi) (e) of the Court-fees Act. The word landlord has not been defined in the Court-fees Act. But with reference to suits between a landlord and tenant we have to take the definitions of landlord and tenant as they are found in the Transfer of Property Act and in the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rents Control Act 1947 In sec. The word landlord has not been defined in the Court-fees Act. But with reference to suits between a landlord and tenant we have to take the definitions of landlord and tenant as they are found in the Transfer of Property Act and in the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rents Control Act 1947 In sec. 5 (3) of the latter Act landlord has thus been defined :-LANDLORD means any person who is for the time being receiving:- or entitled to receive rent in respect of any premises whether on his own account or on account or on behalf or for the benefit of any other person or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let to a tenant; and includes any person not being tenant who from time to time derives title under a landlord; and further includes in respect of his sub tenant a tenant who has sub-let any premises. ( 12 ) LEASE lessor and lessee are defined in sec. 136 of the Transfer of Property Act as follows:-LEASE:- A lease of immoveable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property made for a certain time express or implied or in perpetuity in consideration of a price paid or promised or of money a share of crops service or any other thing of value to be rendered periodically on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee who accepts the transfer on such terms The transferor is called the lessor and the transferee is called the lessee. ( 13 ) BEFORE a person can come within the definition of landlord under sec. 5 of the Rent Act he must be a person who derives a title as landlord and who is not a tenant. It is not the case of the plaintiff that defendants Nos. 4 and 5 derived their title under defendants Nos. 1 to 3. in fact. in the plaint it is stated that defendants Nos. 4 and 5 are tenants of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and therefore they would not be landlords as defined in sec. 5 (3) of the Rent Act. 4 and 5 derived their title under defendants Nos. 1 to 3. in fact. in the plaint it is stated that defendants Nos. 4 and 5 are tenants of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and therefore they would not be landlords as defined in sec. 5 (3) of the Rent Act. The Court-fees Act is a fiscal enactment and provides for suits between landlords and tenants Before a suit can be said to be a suit between a landlord and tenant the parties should satisfy the definitions of landlord and tenant as contained either in the Transfer of Property Act or in the Bombay Rent Act. It is not open to Courts to give another meaning to the words landlord and tenant when these expressions are defined in the relevant Acts. ( 14 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that if the view taken in I. L. R. 32 Calcutta 268 is correct then if a landlord dies his successor would not be a landlord for the purpose of the Court-fees ACt. But this contention is not correct in view of the definition of landlord contained in sec. 5 (3) of the Bombay Rent Act. Such a person would be a landlord according to the definition of landlord contained in sec. 5 (3) of the Bombay Rent Act. ( 15 ) IT is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that a person who has been inducted into the land of the landlord cannot claim a better right of possession as a landlord. The question is one of courtfees and not of substantive rights Before sec. 7 (xi) (e) of the Court-Fees Act can be applied the suit must be one between a landlord and tenant whatever be the substantive rights of the parties a person would not become a landlord unless he satisfies the definition of landlord which is contained in sec. 5 (3) of the Bombay Rent Act. Sec. 109 of the Transfer of Property Act provides for the rights of the transferee from the lessor or the landlord. 5 (3) of the Bombay Rent Act. Sec. 109 of the Transfer of Property Act provides for the rights of the transferee from the lessor or the landlord. Sec. 109 of the T. P. Act reads as under:-IF the lessor transfers the property leased or any part thereof or any part of his interest therein the transferee in the absence of a contract to the contrary shall possess all the rights and if the lessee so elects be subject to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is be owner of it:- but the lessor shall not by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him:- ( 16 ) PROVIDED that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer and that if the lessee not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made pays rent to the lessor the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee. ( 17 ) THE lessor the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium or rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part so transferred and in case they disagree such determination Jay be made by any Court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased. ( 18 ) IF this section is to be applied the possession and position of the tenant must remain unaltered. In the instant case however it is stated in the plaint that possession of the premises has been forcibly taken away from the plaintiff by the landlords and it is only after that that defendants Nos. 4 and 5 have been inducted into the land To such a case sec. 109 of the Transfer of Property Act would have no application. 4 and 5 have been inducted into the land To such a case sec. 109 of the Transfer of Property Act would have no application. ( 19 ) FOR the above reasons whatever be the arguments which can be advanced on grounds of cheapness or convenience the Court must follow the wording of the Court-fees Act provided it is clear and unambiguous and a suit like the present one would not be a suit between the landlord and tenant because it is a suit not only between the landlords and tenant but also between a tenant and two other persons as well namely defendants Nos. 4 and 5 who cannot be said to be the landlords of the plaintiff. There cannot be two sets of landlords. There is therefore no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant. The view taken by the District Court of Surat that the suit does not fall under sec. 7 (xi) (e) but falls under sec. 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act is correct. ( 20 ) IT is however contended that the last para of the order of the trial Court that the findings on merits are not disturbed should be altered by this Court. This observation merely means that the questions of fact and the merits of the matter have not been gone into by the appellate Court in appeal. It does not mean that the findings of fact are confirmed. if the plaint is returned to another Court as the proper Court that court will decide the facts afresh unaffected by the judgments of the Courts below. . ( 21 ) IF the proper court-fee is paid the suit will be tried afresh The civil revision application is therefore dismissed with costs. Application dismissed. .