B.D.Agrawal, J. - (1.) Learned counsel contends that the building in question having been raised in the year 1978, this cannot be said to be covered within the purview of U.P. Act X111 of 1972 and hence the suit for eviction or arrears of rent in respect thereof could not be brought in the court of Small Causes. Reference by the learned counsel was made in this connection to section 20(6) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as originally enacted. Section 20(6) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 aforesaid provided for entry no. 4 of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 being read as "not including a suit by a landlord for the eviction of a tenant (after the determination of his tenancy) from a building as defined in U.P. Act No. X111 of 1972". In accordance with this provision, the effect of entry 4 of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Act would have been to exclude from the jurisdiction of the court of Small Causes a building defined in the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. This however, was amended by the U.P. Act No. XXXVII of 1972 with effect from September, 20, 1972. In accordance with the provision of section 4 of the U.P. Act No. XXXVII of 1972, article 4 of the Second Schedule Small Cause Courts Act has to read as providing that a suit for possession of immoveable property and for he recovery of interest in such property shall lie in the court of Small Causes. This amendment of article 4 brought about by this U.P. Act No. XXXVII of 1972 does not contain the exclusion clause in relation to a building not covered under the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. In other words by virtue of this amendment introduced with effect from 20th September, 1972, it is rendered immaterial that the building does not fall within the purview of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. To such a case as well, the jurisdiction conferred is upon the court of Small Causes. Section 20(6) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was moreover, it self deleted expressly by the U.P. Act No. XXVIII of 1976 with effect from July 5, 1976 since it had become otiose. The result is that in view of Article 4 of Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as at present a suit instituted in the year 1982 (as in the present) lies in the court of Small Causes irrespective of the fact whether the building is such as is or is not covered by the U.P. Act. No. XIII of 1972. The contention that the definition given to the expression 'building' is in substance the same as appearing in the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is of no consequence. Section 2(2) of the U.P. Act X111 of 1972 excludes a building from the operation of that Act during the period of ten years from the date on which its construction takes place. For purposes of application of the aforesaid article 4 this is of no relevance. The plea that the court of Small Causes did not have jurisdiction is, therefore, devoid of merit.
(2.) The revision is in consequence dismissed in limine.
(3.) Certified copy of this order may issue to the counsel for the revisionist on payment of usual charges within three days. Petition dismissed.;