SURESHCHANDRA Vs. RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts are admitted, but the law is not and there is serious contest on both sides on the question of law that has fallen for decision in this revision.

(2.) The revisionist is the defendant and nephew of the plaintiff/non-petitioner. A suit was instituted for recovery of "rent" against the instant revisionist/defendant and the arrears of rent claimed being Rs. 1,000/-, the suit was tried as a small cause. It was decreed. The defendant is, therefore, in this Court challenging in this Court, for the first time, the jurisdictional competence of the Small Causes Court to pass the decree. Shri Ramji Sharma, petitioner's counsel, concedes that the objection pressed here was not taken in the trial Court. But, he submits, any question of jurisdictional competence, and indeed the challenge that the decree or order was a nullity, can be pressed at any stage of any proceeding, at any forum, during the subsistence of the lis.

(3.) The contention of Shri Sharma is that the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit because (i) it involved a question of "title"; and (2) what was claimed could not be "house rent" in respect only of which under Article 8 of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, for short, the 'S.C.C. Act', the trial Court could have jurisdiction to try and decree the suit.