AJAI KUMAR Vs. HARI GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is directed against an order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge dated 30th of October, 1981 disposing of a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the applicant as to the jurisdiction of the said Court to try the suit giving rise to this revision as a Small Cause. The contention of the applicant was that the suit was not cognizable by a Small Cause Court.

(2.) The said objection has been repelled by the Court below by the impugned order. Aggrieved, the applicant has come to this Court.

(3.) In order to appreciate the controversy, it will be necessary to reproduce the substance of the plaint allegations. The Plaintiff -Respondent's case was that he was the owner of a Karkhana (mill) consisting of a building, machinery affixed therein, motor connections, shafts, cutting machines, elevators rolling machines and machines for grinding pulses, a hulling machine etc, indeed everything that goes to comprise a full fledged mill. The Plaintiff let out the said Karkhana (mill) along with the building and the various machineries and installations described in the plaint affixed therein to the Defendant No. 1, who is applicant No. 2 herein and who was doing that business under the name and style of M/s. Ajai Kumar Abhai Kumar (Defendant No. 2 in the suit), arrayed as applicant No. 1 herein, on a monthly rental of Rs. 256.25 P. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, it was stated that the aforesaid Mill was let out to the Defendants for being used as a Karkhana (mills). The term of the lease had expired and the Defendants had not vacated the leased premises despite the service of notice terminating their tenancy and hence the suit.