AKHILESH CHAND VARSHNEY Vs. BHAGWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant-tenant. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the decree passed by the court below is bad in law for the Court of Munsif Koil Aligarh, had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of Section 9 of the U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment). Act, 1972. He further contended that the suit could only be tried by a Court of Small Causes or any other court invested with such power. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that the suit was properly tried by the Court of Munsif Koil on the regular side as the entire suit could not be tried by the Court or Judge Small Causes or any court invested with the powers of a Court of Small Causes.

(2.) THE suit in the present case was filed on 1st June, 1971, in the Court of Munsif Koil, Aligarh. In the snit four reliefs were asked for - firstly, for a decree for possession of ejectment from the suit premises; secondly, for recovery of rent and damages amounting to Rupees 1654.95 with pendente lite and future interest; thirdly, for a decree for damages for the use and occupation from the date of the suit till the date of actual delivery of possession at the rate of Rs. 25.00 per month and fourthly, for a declaration that the reasonable rent of the accommodation was Rs. 25.00 per month. It may be mention here that the suit related to a premises which was a pre-1951 construction. The suit was filed on the basis of permission obtained by the plaintiff to sue for the ejectment of the defendant. The defendant resisted the suit on a variety of grounds and claimed that the suit was barred by the U. P. Act III of 1947 and U. P. Act XIII of 1972. It was also claimed that there were no arrears of rent and the defendant was not liable to ejectment. The issues in the suit were framed on the 24th of May, 1973, and the evidence of the plaintiffs' witness Gopal Krishan was recorded on 14th January, 1974. The evidence of the defendant's witness was recorded on the 15th of January, 1974, and the suit was decreed on the 19th March, 1974.

(3.) IT is well settled that the forum of a suit depends on what has been stated in the plaint itself. The relief claimed in the suit indicated that the present suit was not merely a suit for ejectment of the defendant-tenant, and for the recovery of arrears of rent and for the recovery of damages for the use and occupation but also for a declaration in regard to what was the annual reasonable rent of the premises. It will at once be noticed that while the first three reliefs were such which came under the purview of the Small Cause Court or courts invested with the powers of Small Cause Court, but the relief as regards the declaration of the annual reasonable rent of the premises was one which did not come within the ambit and scope of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. A suit in which a relief for a declaration or the fixation of the reasonable annual rent was sought was not triable by a Court of Small Causes, or by a court invested with the powers of a Small Cause Court. So in the present suit three of the reliefs namely, for ejectment, for arrears of rent and for damages for use and occupation could be tried by the Court of Small Causes but the other relief in respect of the declaration was not triable by the Court of Small Causes.