MOHD HANEEF Vs. SUNIL TULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT rent revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.12.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 10/Judge Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar, whereby Small Cause Case No. 21 of 2006 (Sunil Tuli v. Mohd. Haneef) seeking eviction and arrears of rent filed by landlord, has been decreed against the revisionist and further direction to hand over the peaceful possession of shop in House No. 25/16, situated in Karanchikarkhana, Sagar Market, Kanpur Nagar on the ground floor, to the landlord.

(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that the revisionist is tenant of the aforesaid shop. The premises in question was purchased by Sunil Tuli from its erstwhile owner Amar Nath Gupta vide sale deed dated 15.6.2005. The case of the revisionist has been that after the said purchase had materialized, Sunil Tuli started making all sorts of obstructions in the peaceful possession, and in this background Original Suit No. 1120 of 2005 had been filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding, notice was sent mentioning therein that rent was due with effect from 15.6.2005 to February, 2006, and the rate of rent was described at Rs. 5000/- per month. After the said notice had been received, revisionist gave reply to the said notice dated 20.2.2006 on 23.2.2006. Thereafter another notice was given on 12.3.2006, and as demand made was not complied with, the landlord filed suit as aforesaid, claiming damages for a sum of Rs. 1,25,950/-. In the said proceeding so undertaken, revisionist filed written statement contending therein that entire amount had been deposited, and there were no arrears of rent. In the said JSCC suit after exchange of pleadings and after evidence was led, Judge Small Cause Court proceeded to decree the suit. At this juncture, present revision has been filed.

(3.) COUNTERING the said submission, Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, contended with vehemence that- (i) the provisions of U.P. Act No. 17 of 1991 merely raises pecuniary jurisdiction of Judge Small Cause Court from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 25,000/- in respect of the suits filed by lessor against lessee before Judge Small Causes, whereas pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judges and Additional District Judges while working as Judge Small Cause Court irrespective of the valuation continues to remain intact, and is not at all affected by U.P. Act No. 17 of 1991, as such argument advanced is unsustainable. (ii) In the present case at no point of time issue of jurisdiction was ever raised before the Court below by revisionist, as such in view of Section 21 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, such argument is not at all available and the revisional Court cannot go into the question of jurisdiction. (iii) Once revisionist has accepted his position as tenant, then he cannot resile from the said situation; and on admitted position, the JSCC suit in question has been decreed, then there being no error in exercise of authority by Judge Small Cause Court, no interference is required.