MEHTAB CHAND AGARWAL Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has instituted a SCC Suit No. 22 of 1981 against the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 which is pending in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Lucknow. In that suit the Plaintiff (Petitioner) apart from claiming the reliefs of eviction of the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 from that house as also the arrears of rent etc., has also claimed a relief for compensation amounting to a sum of Rs. 26, 130/ - for the damage which is said to have been caused to the building by the opposite parties. The trial Court itself objected to the inclusion of the relief for compensation for a sum of Rs. 26, 130/ - for damage said to have been caused to the building on the ground that a relief of that nature could not be granted by a Court of Small Causes and the suit was not maintainable. The trial Court after hearing the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff (Petitioner) held that it had no jurisdiction to grant that relief. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that a suit for recovery of compensation against a tenant for damage caused by him to the building which was let out to him would lie in the Small Cause Court as the Second Schedule does not provide that such a suit would be excepted from the cognizance of that Court. He has also contended that since the building is in occupation of opposite parties 2 to 4 as tenant and a suit for their eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation has already been filed against them, a relief for recovery of compensation for damage caused to the building by them can also be included in that suit in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings.

(3.) ARTICLE 4 of the Second Schedule of the Act as amended in U.P. provides as under: