SANTOSH SINGH Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties. At the stage of admission the respondent was served and counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, as such the present revision is being disposed of finally at this stage.

(2.) THE applicant by means of this revision has challenged the order dated 12th April, 1985 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge Ghaziabad by virtue of which the suit for recovery of rent in arrears and for damages for use and occupation was decreed. THE main ground of attack of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Judge Small Cause Courts has no jurisdiction to decide the suit which is not for the eviction and thus the suit merely for arrears of rent and damages is not cognizable by him. It was also contended that since the present suit, as disclosed by paras 1 and 2 of the plaint, is for open piece of land, the Judge Small Cause Courts has no jurisdiction to decide it. THE latter point urged by the learned counsel for the applicant is not sustainable as per judgment on issue no. 2, a certified copy of which has been filed before me. Ex. 1 shows that the suit premises comprises of plot of land with two Kothas and a tin shed. Thus the tenancy referred is not for open piece of land and the contention to the contrary is not sustainable.

(3.) IN Munni Lal v. Ajai Kumar, 1983 (VI) ARC 282, and Sundar Dass v. Ram Prakash, AIR 1977 SC 1201 also it has been similarly decided. Thus such suits would not be cognizable and Small Causes Courts will have no jurisdiction to entertain such suit and the decree passed therein would be without jurisdiction.