LAXMINARAYAN Vs. NIYAMAT MASJID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Mr. J. P. Dwivedi pleader for the applicant heard. It is argued that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as it involved a dispute relating to ground rent. Reliance is placed on Umachurn v. Bijari Bewah (1888) 15 Cal 174. This case has no application as the land in respect of which rent was claimed, was homestead land, i. e., agricultural land. In the present case the site is situated in a town and was neither revenue paying nor agricultural land. The plaintiff claimed the rent for use and occupation of the land as a licensor under a contract between the parties. Even in the absence of any contract, it has been held that the Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to award damages for use and occupation of such lands: see Vira Pillai v. Rangasami Pillai (1899) 22 Mad 149 and A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 196. Such suits are not excepted from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court.

(2.) IT is further urged that the contract to pay rent is not proved. No doubt there is some discrepancy in the evidence but there is evidence however slight, to sustain the finding of the lower Court.