SADHANANDHAN Vs. LEELAVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed in M.P. 1226 of 1981 in Distress Application No. 135 of 1981 by the Registrar of Small Causes Court, Madras. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are briefly as follows: The revision petitioner is the tenant occupying door No.1, Artisses Shanmugham St., Anderson Road, Ayyanavaram, Madras 23. According to the respondent-landlord, the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent. Hence, she filed Dist. Appin. No.135 of 1981 before the Registrar of Small Causes Court,. Madras, for issuing a warrant to distress the movables in the possession of the revision petitioner in the above premises for recovery of Rs.2,800 being the arrears of rent at Rs.400 per mensem from December, 1980 till the end of June, 1981, and obtained an order of attachment of the movables belonging to the revision petitioner. In execution of the said order, the Bailiff who was accompanied by the husband of the respondent - landlady distrained 18 items of articles, whose value has been fixed at Rs.1,925. The revision petitioner filed a petition in M.P.1225 of 1981, under Sec.60 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, for discharge of the warrant of distress, and another petition In M.P.1226 of 1981, under Sec.62 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act for awarding compensation of Rs.15,000. The Registrar of Small Causes Court allowed the application M.P.1225 of 1981, holding that the respondent-landlady had suppressed the facts and obtained EX PARTE order of distress stating that the revision petitioner-tenant has fallen into arrears amounting to Rs.2,800 and in the circumstances of the case the warrant of distress Is not called for and hence it is liable to be discharged. However, the Registrar of Small Causes Court dismissed the application M.P. 1226 of 1981 for claiming compensation of Rs. 15,000 by the tenant on the ground that though the revision petitioner has been put to loss of reputation and mental agony and is entitled to claim compensation, yet, considering the fact that the pecuniary Jurisdiction of the said court is only Rs. 20, the said Court is unable to award compensation In a sum of Rs. 15,000. C.R.P.3782 of 1982 filed by the landlady against the order passed in M.P.1225 of 1981 was dismissed by M.A.Sathar Sayed, J.

(2.) THE present C.R.P. is filed by the tenant against the order- passed in M.P. 126 of 1981. According to the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner-tenant, when the Registrar of Small Causes Court is competent to issue a distress warrant for unlimited amount, the Registrar ought to have awarded compensation and erred in dismissing the application on the ground that he has got pecuniary jurisdiction only to Rs. 20 and dismissed the petition on that score. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent landlord would submit that under Sec.14 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, it is specifically provided that the Registrar may be invested with the powers of a Judge in suits not exceeding Rs.20 by the State Government and as such the order passed by the Registrar of Small Causes Court in this case is perfectly legal and in accordance with the provision of the siad Act and no interference is called for. Now the question that arises for determination in this revision is whether the Registrar of Small Causes Court, who is competent to issue distress warrant for any amount which accrued for a particular period, Is empowered to award compensation in connection with the distress warrant made by him of only Rs.20 In this connection, it is submitted by the learned counsel on either side that there is no precedent on this question by this Court and any of the other High Courts to the best of knowledge.

(3.) THE question raised relates to the consequence of levy of distress under Ch.8 of the Act which lays down the substantive as well as procedural law on levy of distress. It has been held in NASIRUDDIN v. UMERJI ADAM AND CO, A.I.R. 1941 Bom.286 at 287 that Ch.8 of the Act is exhaustive on all points relating to the issue of the distress warrant. In BHALA SINGH v. GOSTO BEHARI, A.I.R.1966 Cal.199, it has been held: