RAM SARAN LAL Vs. DEVENDRA BHUSHAN SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the principal submission of the counsel for the defendant-applicant is that the provision permitting trial of a suit of the nature involved in this case by the District Judge and the Additional District Judge as a Small Cause, irrespective of the amount claimed as arrears of rent or damages for use and occupation of the premises was bad, for, even the District Judge and Additional District Judge could not be treated to have jurisdiction to try suits of a valuation exceeding Rs. 5,000/- as provided in section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The decision of this Court in the case of M. P. Mishra v. Sangam Lal Agarwal, 1975 AWC 425 in which this Court up- held the competence of the District Judge and the Additional District Judge to try suit involving an amount in excess of Rs. 5,000/-, is characterised as one which requires reconsideration.

(2.) AFTER hearing counsel for the applicant at some length, I am not satisfied that the decision in the case aforesaid, which was followed by the same Hon'ble (Mr. Justice M. P. Mehrotra (Judge in a later decision in Trilok Singh v. Smt. Jamuna Das, AIR 1978 Allahabad 129, requires reconsideration. For the reasons contained in the judgment, with which I am in respectful agreement it is hot possible to accept the submission made by the learned counsel on the aspects of the case considered by M. P. Mehrotra, J.

(3.) ANOTHER submission by the learned counsel for the applicant has been that the provision enabling the trial by the District Judge and the Additional District Judge of the suits of the nature specified in sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, irrespective of their value, would render the provision discriminately. The argument is that while suits for recovery of arrears of rent or of compensation for use and occupation of a sum in excess of Rs. 5,000/- will be triable by a Court of Small Cause another suit for recovery of- an equivalent amount on any other count is triable by a regular civil court. Since the procedure contemplated for trial of suits by the Court of Small Cause is summary in character, a litigant, like a tenant in the instant case, is likely to be prejudiced. Suffice it to say that all the tenants of the nature envisaged by sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act have been similarly treated and they form an intelligible class by themsleves, different from a litigant against whom a suit for recovery of an amount in excess of Rs. 5,000/- on any other ground may be filed. The suggestion that the classification has no rational nexus with the object " sought to be achieved by making the suit of this nature cognizable by a Court of Small Cause again is not sound for it is clear that where a lessor terminates the lease and seeks recovery of an amount due to him either as rent or as compensation for use and occupation of the premises belonging to him, he was to be given relief expeditiously. Primarily with this object, the suits of this nature were made triable by Judge, Small Causes. May be, the procedure for trial is not as elaborate as that in a regular suit and no right of appeal is available to an aggrieved tenant yet, like all other tenants in the premises whose tenancy has been terminated, the tenant can seek reexamination of the decision against him in a revision under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act.