NARAYANSINGH RAMBILAS Vs. RAMESHWARDAYAL MAHADEOJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question raised in this revision petition relates to the jurisdiction of the small Cause Court to entertain a suit in respect of hire-charges of a loud speaker.

(2.) PLAINTIFF's case is that the defendant took on rent a loud speaker to be used for election purposes and he claimed Rs. 321-14-0 as hire-charges in respect of that loud speaker. The defence is that a suit in respect of the claim in question is not cognizable in the Court of Small Causes as it is specifically excluded under Article 8 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. This contention of the defendant was accepted by the learned Small Cause Judge, Indore relying upon a decision reported in Ali Hasan v. Pratap, 1950 Madh-B LR 496 (A ). In that case it was held that the word 'rent' in Article 8 of Schedule II of Small cause Courts Act means a return in money or kind for the enjoyment of specific property held by one person from or under another. The facts of the case in which the aforesaid observations were made were -that the plaintiff had filed a suit for the recovery of hire-charges payable for the use of a bullock cart. As the position then stood the decision appeared to be binding being that of a Judge of Madhya bharat High Court. Consequently the learned Small Cause Judge directed a return of the plaint for presentation to proper Court. The present revision petition is directed against that order.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the word 'rent' as used in the Article 8 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, has reference to rent in respect of immoveable property and does not include hire-charges in respect of a moveable property. He relied upon the decisions reported in Pukhraj v. Mohammad Ali, AIR 1957 Raj 279 (B), Radha Kishen v. Sona Khandi, AIR 1952 j and K 15 (C); Maung Kywe v. Maung Kala, AIR 1927 Rangoon 94 (D), in support of his contention.