NARSINGH RAI Vs. SHISHU GYAN MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The plaintiff-applicant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7490/- before the District Judge, Gorakhpur as a Small Causes Court Suit No. 5 of 1978. The suit was transferred to the Court of IIIrd Addl. District Judge. The suit has been partly decreed for Rs. 1680/- against the defendants. The present revision has been filed by the plaintiff claiming that they were entitled to a decree for the entire amount of Rs. 7490/ -. After looking into the record I find that the suit itself was not maintainable in the Court of Small Causes. It was a suit for recovery of the amount as house tax and water tax. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that as the dispute was between the landlord and the tenant it was not covered by the exception, to the entry 4 to the II Schedule of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The entry 4 of the II Schedule read with Section 15 (1) of the Act, which excludes the cogniz ance of the suits, reads as under: " (4) A suit for the possession of immovable property, or for the recovery of an interest in such property, but not including a suit by a lessor for the eviction of lessee from a building after the determination of lease, and for the recovery from him of compensation for the use and occupation of that building after such determination of lease. Explanation.-For the purpose of this Article, the expression Building means a residential or non- residential roofed structure, and includes any land (including any garden), garages and out-houses, appurtenant to such building, and also includes any fittings and fixtures affixed to the building, for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof. " The suit being merely for recovery of House Tax and Water tax was neither for any mesne profits relating to any building nor for compensation of rent in respect of the same. Every dispute between the landlord and the tenant will not be covered by the exception in the aforesaid entry. The jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes is provided by Section 15 of the Act. The provisions of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 were also amended in their application to Uttar Pradesh by U. P. Act No. 37 of 1972. In Section 25 of the aforesaid Act sub-section (2) has been added. It reads as under: " (2) The State Government may by notification in the official Gazette, confer upon any District Judge or Additional District Judge the jurisdic tion of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, for the trial of all suits (irrespective of their value), by the lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease, or for the recovery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease or of compensation for the use and occupation thereof after such determina tion of lease, and may withdraw any jurisdiction so conferred. Explanation.-for the purposes of this sub-section, the expression 'building' has the same meaning as in Article (4) in the Second Schedule to the said Act. " Thus in case of suits by a lessor for eviction of lessee or for recovery of rent or for compensation for use and occupation after determination of lease of any value could be tried by the Court of Small Causes if authorised by the State Government in that behalf but as already pointed out, the present suit is not a suit of that nature. It will have to be governed by Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. Section 15 has been amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh by U. P. Act No. 57 of 1976. Under sub- section (3) of Section 15 the jurisdiction can be extended only upto Rs. 3000/- by a notification by the State Government. This being a suit for an amount more than Rs. 3000/- was not cognizable by the Court of Small Causes. This was a simple money suit and being valued at more than Rs. 3000/- was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. Under Issue No. 5 the Court below has observed that the money suits upto the value of Rs. 10,000/- were cognizable by the Court of Small Causes. The learned counsel for the applicant could not place any law, notification or other provision before me which could extend the jurisdiction of the Judge Small Causes in money suit to Rs. 10,000/- consequently hold that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to try the suit. As the suit could not be heard by the Court of Small Causes the plaint has to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The judgment and decree passed by the Court below is set aside. The record of the case may be sent down to the Court below immediately. The Court below is directed to return the plaint of the suit to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. .