ORDER B.D. Gupta, J. - This is a Defendant's application in revision arising out of an order of the learned Munsif, Mathura, whereby he held, inter alia, that the claim in the suit had been correctly valued and that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. The Plaintiff-opposite-parties claimed a decree for possession over land, including buildings standing thereon, together with arrears of rent for certain period and damages for use and occupation for the subsequent period, on the assertion that Sri Chander Bhan, the predecessor in interest of the Defendants, had entered possession as a tenant under a contract of tenancy on certain terms which included one to the effect that such buildings, as may be raised by the tenant during the period of his occupation as tenant, shall revert to the landlord on certain conditions which need not be detailed herein. Plaintiffs' case was that the tenant had raised certain constructions, that the contract of tenancy had come to an end, that the Defendants were not trespassers and that the Plaintiffs were entitled to resume possession of the property let out along with buildings raised by the tenant, as also to realise arrears of rent for the period during which the tenancy subsisted together with damages for use and occupation for the subsequent period. The suit was valued, for purposes of jurisdiction, at an amount which was well within the pecuniary jurisdiction exercised by the learned Munsif. In defence it was pleaded, inter alia, that the constructions raised by the Defendants were of considerable value and that if the value of those constructions was taken into consideration, the value of the claim set forward en Plaintiffs' behalf was bound to exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction exercised by the learned Munsif. The eighth issue framed by the court below was as to whether the court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. This issue was decided by the order sought to be revised by this petition. The eighth issue framed by the court below was as to whether the court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. This issue was decided by the order sought to be revised by this petition. The contention raised on Defendants behalf that for purposes of jurisdiction market value of the property should have been taken into consideration was negatived by the learned Munsif on the view that it was a suit by a landlord against the heirs of a tenant under a registered document of lease for a fixed term and was, therefore, covered by Clause (xi) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act with the result that for purposes of jurisdiction it was not required to be valued at the market value of the property as provided in Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act. 3. Learned Counsel for the Defendant-Applicant raised the contention that since the relief claimed in the plaint included recovery of possession of land and buildings including structures which had not been the subject matter of tenancy, but had subsequently been raised by the tenant himself and was founded on the assertion that the tenancy had come to an end and the Defendants were trespassers, it should be held to fall within Clause (v) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act with the result that it would be covered by the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act, as amended by this Court and valuation for purposes of jurisdiction had to be computed on the market value of the property involved. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that this contention cannot be accepted. 4. It is true that on the plaint allegations relationship of landlord and tenant no longer existed between the parties and the Defendants were described as trespassers. It is equally true that on the plaint allegations the Defendants' predecessor-in-interest had been put into possession under a contract of tenancy. The position, therefore, is that this is a suit by an ex-landlord against ex-tenants and the question is whether or not to such a suit the provisions contained in Clause (xi) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act are applicable. The position, therefore, is that this is a suit by an ex-landlord against ex-tenants and the question is whether or not to such a suit the provisions contained in Clause (xi) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act are applicable. Sub-clause (cc) of Clause (xi) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act provides for a suit between a landlord and a tenant for recovery of immoveable property from a tenant including a tenant holding over after determination of tenancy. I am of the opinion that the learned Munsif was right in relying upon this provision for deciding the question of valuation for purposes of jurisdiction. 5. In the case of AIR 1928 227 (Privy Council) the question as to the meaning to be attributed to words 'landlord and tenant' came up for interpretation with reference to certain provisions in the Calcutta Rent Act. It was observed that in order to give working effect to the Act it was necessary that the words 'landlord and tenant' must include, as they often do in ordinary parlance, ex-landlords and ex-tenants and that an action by an ex-landlord against ex-tenants might ordinarily be described as an action of landlord against tenant. Reliance was placed on the decision of the English Court of Appeal Remon v. City of London Real Property Co. (1921) 1 QB 49 in which Lord Justice Scrutton, whilst considering what was meant to be included in the term 'tenant', observed, in regard to provisions contained in Increase of Rent Act, 1920 101 G. 5 17, that if a tenant by agreement whose tenancy had expired, was not within those terms, the whole purpose of the Act would have been defeated. 6. In the case of Govinda Kumar Sur and Others Vs. Mohini Mohan Sen and Others, AIR 1930 Cal 42 , a Division Bench, of the Calcutta High Court followed the decision recorded by the Privy Council in the case of Karnani Industrial. Co., Ltd, v. Satya Niranjan Shaw referred to above and held that in Clause (xi)(cc) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act tenant meant an ex-tenant, i.e., a person who was a tenant but had ceased to be so. 7. Similar view was taken by a decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Telanga Marandi Majhi Vs. Chandra Mohan Singh, AIR 1933 Patna 664 . 8. 7. Similar view was taken by a decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Telanga Marandi Majhi Vs. Chandra Mohan Singh, AIR 1933 Patna 664 . 8. No decision laying down a contrary proposition has been cited on behalf of the Applicant and I have no doubt that the present suit falls within the ambit of Clause (xi) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act and not within the ambit of Clause (v) of Section 7 of that Act. There is no controversy that that being so, the view taken by the court below on the question of valuation for purposes of jurisdiction is perfectly correct. 9. Accordingly this revision is dismissed with costs. The interim order of this Court staying further proceedings is vacated and the record is directed to be sent to the court concerned immediately to enable it to proceed with the suit. Revision dismissed.