BISHAMBHAR DAYAL Vs. GIRDHAR LAL ODHAVJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's application in revision from the part of the order, passed by the First Civil judge of Kanpur, holding that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the claim, for recovery of arrears of rent.

(2.) THE suit was by the landlord for the enhancement of rent under Section 5 (4), U. P. Temporary control of Rent and Eviction Act (3 of 1947), (hereinafter called the Act ). The plaintiff wanted the rent to be fixed at a sum of Rs. 50/- per mensem and valued the suit at Rs. 600/-, the amount of rent for one year. He also claimed Rs. 900/- as arrears of rent for eighteen months at the same rate of Rs. 50/-per mensem. One of the pleas taken in defence was that the claim for recovery of arrears of rent was not cognizable by the learned Civil Judge and such a claim could not be joined to a suit for fixation of rent under Section 5 (4) of the Act. This is the only point with which I am concerned in this revision.

(3.) THE learned Civil Judge framed issue No. 4 on the point but, as he himself has remarked, the issue is not happily worded, still the parties knew what it meant and the learned Civil Judge has decided only this issue by his order under revision. The learned Civil Judge has held that the claim for recovery of arrears of rent would be cognizable by a court of small causes and not by his court, and that Act 3 ot 1947 did not contemplate a suit for arrears of rent. He further held that in the valuation of the suit for determination of rent and for recovery of arrears of rent had exceeded Rs. 5000/-, he might have had jurisdiction to entertain both the claims; but, as the total valuation of both the claims is less than Rs. 5000/-, he came to the conclusion that the claim for recovery of arrears of rent was not cognizable by him. The plaintiff has, accordingly, come up in revision to this Court under Section 115, Civil P. C. and has challenged the correctness of the decision of the learned Civil Judge.