FIDALLY USUFALLY Vs. BAI KRIPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff brought a suit in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad to evict the defendant, his tenant ; and the defendant among other contentions raised a plea under the Rent Restriction Act. No question of the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court seems to have been raised in the suit ; and after the decree was passed against the defendant and he put in an application in revision, even then his application in its original form contained no allegation of want of jurisdiction on the part of the Court. A ground was however subsequently added against the jurisdiction of the Court, and that is the only point which I have troubled to hear.

(2.) BRIEFLY the position seems to me to be this. A Court of Small Causes in the mofussil could not try any suit for the possession of land except by virtue of the limited powers given under the Bombay Amendment to the Small Cause Courts Act which was passed in 1930. That amendment gives jurisdiction in cases where the only substantial issue arising in the case is the determination of the lease by efflux of time or by valid notice. By reason of a plea under the Rent Restriction Act having been raised a substantial issue arose in this case as to the liability of the tenant to be evicted in view of the provisions of the Act. In particular it became necessary to decide whether the landlord bona fide required the property for his own use. In other words a substantial issue arose which was not covered by the Bombay Amendment; and prima facie therefore the suit was outside the scope of the Small Cause Court.

(3.) THE rule is made absolute. THE plaint should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. Costs will be costs in the cause.