SUDHAKAR Vs. SHRIPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal was admitted on 19.11.2088 by formulating the question of law as under

(2.) Section 26 (2) is in Chapter IVAI of the Act relating to recovery of possession of certain immovable property and certain licence fees and rent. Section 26 of the Act provides that suits or proceedings between licensors and licensees or landlords and tenants for recovery of possession of immovable property and licence fees or rent, except those to which other Acts apply, shall lie in Court of Small Causes. The non obstante clause in subsection (1) of Section 26 of the Act provides that the Court of Small Causes shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try all suits and proceedings between a licensor and licensee, or a landlord and tenant, relating to the recovery of possession of any immovable property situated in the area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes, or relating to the recovery of the licence fee or charges of rent therefor, irrespective of the value of the subjectmatter of such suits or proceedings. Subsection (2) of Section 26 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 makes exception to subsection (1) in the following terms

(3.) Reading the above provisions, now let us consider the averments made in the plaint. In Civil Suit No. 935 of 2003 instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, respondent herein (original plaintiff) averred that he had purchased suit plot Bidpeth locality of Nagpur in the year 1976 and constructed kaccha two rooms. He averred that defendant who is his distant relation, approached him and requested plaintiff to give him the said two rooms for a temporary period. Considering his difficulty, plaintiff allowed defendant to use and occupy suit premises for a period of six months. After six months when plaintiff asked defendant to vacate the premises, defendant avoided on the ground that he was searching for suitable accommodation but could not get it. After waiting for a long time since defendant was not vacating the suit premises, plaintiff issued legal notice dated 24.3.2003 calling upon him to vacate the suit premises. Defendant received the notice, but failed to comply with the demand made therein. Hence, plaintiff filed the suit based on his title alleging defendant as trespasser and claiming possession of suit premises and consequential relief of mesne profits etc.