IQBAL RAZA Vs. E.P. CLEOPHAS AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Allahabad rejecting the prayer of the applicant on an application under Sec. 23 of U.P. Small Causes Courts Act. The suit was for arrears of rent and ejectment of the tenant, filed by the land lord. A plea has been raised by the tenant denying the title of the land lord plaintiff. It has been stated that the plaintiff is not the owner and and lord of the premises in question. The submission is that complicated question of title is involved in the present suit, hence the Judge Small Causes Courts has no jurisdiction. This question was considered by the Court below and it has been observed that the relation of land lord and tenant is not essentially to be determined on the basis of the title of the land lord. According to the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, a person who has been receiving the rent is land lord for the purpose of the suit for ejectment and recovery of the arrears of rent. In the present case the plea of the land lord was that the suit itself was not governed by the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. On the contrary the defence pleading is that the suit is to be governed by the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The question of title of the person is not of much significance. The suit can be decided on issues as to who was the person who inducted the tenant in the accommodation in suit and receiving rent, for finding whether plaintiff is land lord within the meaning of the term land lord. The court below considered this aspect and recorded finding that it can not be said that the suit is not cognizable by the Judge Small Causes Court.

(2.) The another submission has been made by the applicant that the valuation of the suit is less than 25,000.00. There is a notification by the High Court, which directs that suit valued less than-25,000.00 are to be tried by the Judge Small Causes Court i.e. Civil Judge and Munsif. It is apparent that if such cases, which are above is more than 25,000.00 valuation, they are to be tried by the Additional District Judge, having power of Judge Small Causes Court. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the valuation being lesser than 25,000.00 the Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to proceed with the case. He pointed out that an application for transfer was moved before the District Judge, which was rejected and a transfer application arising out of that rejection is also pending in this court and interim order passed. Further proceedings in the court below have been stayed as such that question is already under consideration by this Court.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel that this question was raised before the learned Additional District Judge alongwith the question of maintainability of the suit itself but the judgment is silent on the point and the court below has not referred any of the submission on the point of jurisdiction in relation to the valuation of the suit. A question which is not referred in the judgment or discussed is to be presumed that such question was not argued before the court below. The learned counsel for the applicant has not filed any affidavit of the learned counsel, who has argued the case in the court below that this point was specially argued before the court below and was not considered. In this circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the submission on this point.