GOVIND BHAWAN KARYALAYA Vs. CHHEDI LAL DINESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Govind Bhawan Karyalaya, the applicant in this revision filed a suit against the respondent Chhedi Lal Dinesh Kumar for eviction and for the recovery of arrears of rent and damages after determining their tenancy by a notice dated 7/11-10-1999. The plaintiff is a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. Its case is that Gita Press is its unit and the defendant/respondent was a tenant of two shops in Gita Press Bhawan. The plaintiff claimed exemption from the U. P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 under Section 2 (1) (bb) thereof on the ground that it is a public charitable institution. The Judge Small Causes, Gorakhpur dismissed the suit on 30-5-2003 giving rise to this revision.

(2.) THE Judge Small Causes held that in order to claim exemption under Clause (bb) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 it was necessary for the plaintiff to get an exemption from the State Government under Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the Act, which the plaintiff did not obtain. THE Court then proceeded to consider whether the plaintiff could get exemption under Section 2 (1) (f) of Act No. 13 of 1972. On facts it was found that the plaintiff is not entitled to any exemption under that provision either. It was held that the plaintiff is a private charitable institution. THEre is also a finding that the rent was being paid to Gita Press and that Gita Press was, therefore, rather the landlord and not the plaintiff.

(3.) SRI Murlidhar who appeared for the applicant submitted that he was not claiming exemption under Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act but was claiming it only under Section 2 (1) (bb ). I shall, therefore, consider this case in the light of this provision alone. Before examining this question on merits I shall consider the contention of SRI Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the respondents that no exemption under Section 2 (1) (bb) can be granted by the Judge Small Causes in a suit for eviction of the tenant like the present one but can only be granted by the regular Civil Court. Section 20 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 permits a suit for eviction being filed on grounds specified therein only. Unless the landlord brings his suit under one of the grounds provided under that Section the suit would not be maintainable. However, if a building is exempt from the applicability of the Act itself under Section 2 (1) (bb) or under any of the other clauses of exemption it would not be necessary for the landlord to establish any of the grounds mentioned in Section 20. He can then institute a suit after determining the tenancy by a simpliciter notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. By virtue of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act read with Article 4 of the II Schedule of that Act a suit for eviction of a tenant from a building after determination of the lease is maintainable in the Small Causes Court. All questions arising between the parties in such a suit would, therefore, have to be determined by the Judge Small Causes. Where an exemption is claimed by the plaintiff the Court would have to decide that question because upon it would depend whether the plaintiff would have to prove the existence of the grounds under Section 20 or not. When the Legislature has created a forum for deciding a particular class of suits it would be presumed to have conferred it with the jurisdiction to decide all questions that arise therein and there is no plausible reason why the question of exemption under Clause (bb) of Section 2 (i) in the same way as an exemption, under any other clause of that sub -section cannot be decided by the Judge Small Causes Court.