V. K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) IN this revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the principal submission of the counsel for the defendant-applicant is that the provision permitting trial of a suit of the nature involved in this case by the District Judge and the Additional District Judge as a Small Cause, irrespective of the amount claimed as arrears of rent or damages for use and occupation of the premises was bad, for, even the District Judge and Additional District Judge could not be treated to have jurisdiction to try suits of a valuation exceeding Rs. 5,000/- as provided in section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The decision of this Court in the case of M. P. Mishra v. Sangam Lal Agarwal, 1975 AWC 425 in which this Court up- held the competence of the District Judge and the Additional District Judge to try suit involving an amount in excess of Rs. 5,000/-, is characterised as one which requires reconsideration.
(2.) AFTER hearing counsel for the applicant at some length, I am not satisfied that the decision in the case aforesaid, which was followed by the same Hon'ble (Mr. Justice M. P. Mehrotra (Judge in a later decision in Trilok Singh v. Smt. Jamuna Das, AIR 1978 Allahabad 129, requires reconsideration. For the reasons contained in the judgment, with which I am in respectful agreement it is hot possible to accept the submission made by the learned counsel on the aspects of the case considered by M. P. Mehrotra, J. By way of an additional argument, it was suggested by the counsel for the applicant that sub-section (4) of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 had to be limited in its operation to the taking of cognizance by the District Judge or an Additional District Judge upon whom the powers to try the suit as a small cause were conferred. It was urged that in sub-section (2) of section 25, where it is specifically mentioned that the State Government could confer upon the District Judge or the Additional District Judge the jurisdiction of a Judge of Court of Small Causes, it was provided that it had to be under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which meant that the pecuniary limit had to be confined to the one provided in section 15 (1) of the Small Cause Courts Act. In respect of the words 'irrespective of their value' contained in sub-section (2), the submission made was that these words were put in to obviate amendment of this sub-section in case the pecuniary jurisdiction provided for in section 15 was increased or decreased. It is true that section 25 (2) talks of conferment of the jurisdiction of the Judge of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act yet it cannot be over-looked that the Legislature has used clear words that suit by the lessor for ejectment of a lessee from a building, after determination of his lease or for recovery from him of arrears of rent for a period thereof, during the continuation of the lease or compensation for the use and occupation thereof after such determination of lease shall be triable by Courts of Small Causes irrespective of their valuation. In view of the unequivocable words in which the Legislature has expressed its intention in this sub-section, it would not be possible to accept the submission that by some rule of interpretation limited meaning should be given to them in the manner suggested by the learned counsel. It is also noticeable that in .sub-section (4) of section 25 it has clearly been provided that notwithstanding anything contained in section 15 of the Small Cause Courts Act, all suits referred to in sub-section (1) shall be congizable by the Court of Small Causes where the jurisdiction of a Judge of the Court of Small Causes is conferred on a District Judge or an Additional District Judge. This sub-section makes the intention of the Legislature absolutely clear, namely, that it wanted to confer upon the District Judge or the Additional District Juge power to try suits of the nature mentioned in sub-section (2) without any limit of pecuniary jurisdiction provided for in section 15 of Small Cause Courts Act. It may be observed at this stage that section 15 (2) of that Act itself contemplates that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed Rs. 2,000/- shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes subject to the exceptions specified in the Second Schedule and "to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force." This part of sub-section (2) of section 15 would clearly embrace within its scope the provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (4) of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act.
(3.) ANOTHER submission by the learned counsel for the applicant has been that the provision enabling the trial by the District Judge and the Additional District Judge of the suits of the nature specified in sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, irrespective of their value, would render the provision discriminately. The argument is that while suits for recovery of arrears of rent or of compensation for use and occupation of a sum in excess of Rs. 5,000/- will be triable by a Court of Small Cause another suit for recovery of- an equivalent amount on any other count is triable by a regular civil court. Since the procedure contemplated for trial of suits by the Court of Small Cause is summary in character, a litigant, like a tenant in the instant case, is likely to be prejudiced. Suffice it to say that all the tenants of the nature envisaged by sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act have been similarly treated and they form an intelligible class by themsleves, different from a litigant against whom a suit for recovery of an amount in excess of Rs. 5,000/- on any other ground may be filed. The suggestion that the classification has no rational nexus with the object " sought to be achieved by making the suit of this nature cognizable by a Court of Small Cause again is not sound for it is clear that where a lessor terminates the lease and seeks recovery of an amount due to him either as rent or as compensation for use and occupation of the premises belonging to him, he was to be given relief expeditiously. Primarily with this object, the suits of this nature were made triable by Judge, Small Causes. May be, the procedure for trial is not as elaborate as that in a regular suit and no right of appeal is available to an aggrieved tenant yet, like all other tenants in the premises whose tenancy has been terminated, the tenant can seek reexamination of the decision against him in a revision under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. It was then urged that the provision of summary trial of cases of this nature was unreasonable. The ground of unreasonableness suggested is that the Court is not competent to frame issues or to record evidence in its entirety. That, by itself, can be no ground to hold that the provision is unreasonable. In suits of this kind, evidence in its substantial part is recorded and the Courts frame specific points for decision about the controversy between the parties. The trial has been entrusted to experienced Judicial Officers like District Judges and Additional District Judges in cases where the amount involved is in excess of Rs. 5,000/-. Besides, the decision is subject to scrutiny by a revisional Court. These are ample safeguards which rule out the possibility of any unreasonableness.;