Ram Narain Prasad v. Atul Chander Mitra, (1994)

Introduction

When a landlord files a suit to evict a tenant, how should the court fee be calculated—based on ownership rights or just the tenant-landlord relationship? This was the key question in the landmark Supreme Court case Ram Narain Prasad v. Atul Chander Mitra (1994). The ruling clarified a significant legal point under Section 7(xi)(cc) of the Court Fees Act, especially when the tenant challenges the title of the landlord.

Facts of the Case

In this case, one Jaikishun Lal purchased a residential house from the first respondent. After the sale, the seller (first respondent) requested to continue staying in the same house as a tenant. Jaikishun Lal agreed, and a formal rent agreement was executed. The respondent paid rent to Jaikishun Lal and, after his death, to his children (the appellants/plaintiffs). Later, Jaikishun Lal’s children applied for mutation in the municipal records to reflect their ownership. The respondent filed an objection against the mutation, but it was rejected.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an eviction suit (Recovery of Possession) against the respondent on two main grounds:

1. Personal requirement of the premises.
2. Non-payment of rent for a few months.

They calculated and paid the court fee based on 12 months' rent, as per Section 7(xi)(cc) of the Court Fees Act.

Defendant Contention 

1. In his written statement, the defendant claimed that the sale deed executed earlier was not a genuine transaction, and therefore, the plaintiffs had no title over the property. He asserted that he was, in fact, the rightful owner and not a tenant under the plaintiffs.
2. Based on this denial, the defendant argued that the nature of the suit was no longer a simple eviction matter between landlord and tenant, and hence, the court fee should not have been calculated on the basis of rent

Issues

1. Whether the denial of title by the defendant changes the nature of the suit?
2. Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff based on annual rent is valid despite such denial?

Supreme Court’s Ratio Decidendi

1. The Supreme Court held that under Section 7(xi)(cc) of the Court Fees Act, the court fee in suits for the eviction of tenants (Recovery of Possession) is to be computed based on the annual rent of the premises. This position remains unchanged even if the defendant denies the plaintiff’s ownership or tenancy relationship. The Court emphasized that:
1. The nature of the suit is determined solely on the basis of the plaint, not the defendant’s response.
2. Court fee is payable at the time of filing the suit, and at that stage, only the plaint is available before the court—not the written statement or any defense.
2. The Court relied on its earlier judgment in Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar (1958), reiterating that the valuation for court fee purposes must be based on the averments in the plaint alone.

Final Decision

1. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the court fee paid by the plaintiffs on the basis of annual rent was appropriate and reasonable. The denial of title by the defendant did not alter the nature of the suit, which remained one for the eviction of a tenant.

Conclusion

This landmark decision reinforces a crucial procedural principle: the assessment of court fees is governed by the content of the plaint, not by the defenses raised in reply. Even when the tenant disputes the landlord’s title, it does not transform the fundamental nature of the eviction suit. Ram Narain Prasad v. Atul Chander Mitra remains a guiding precedent on court fee computation in tenancy disputes.