D.M.CHANDRASHEKHAR,C.J. - (1.) THIS revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge on issue No. 1 in S.C.C. Suit No. 69 of 1969. The issue was tried as a preliminary issue and he held that he had jurisdiction to try the suit. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the defendants have come up in revision.
(2.) THE suit is for ejectment of the defendant-respondents from the suit premises. The suit it valued at Rs. 19,800/-. The defendants contended that since the value of the subject matter is above Rs. 5,000, the suit could not be tried as Small Cause Suit in view of sub­section (3) of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Small Cause Courts Act') (Central Act No. IX of 1946). That sub-section in the Central Act reads: "15. Cognizance of suits by Court of Small Causes- (1) ........ ...... (2) ..... ..... (3) Subject as aforesaid, the State Government may, by order, in writing direct that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed one; thousand shall be cognizable by a court of Small Causes mentioned in the order." By Section 2 of the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 27 of 1972) the following proviso to that sub-section has been added: "Provided that in relation to suits by the lessor for the evic­tion of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lessee, for recovery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease, or of compensation for the use and occupation thereof after such determination of lease, the reference in this sub-section to two thousand rupees shall be construed as a reference to five thous­and rupees. Explanation-For the purposes of this sub-section, the express 'building' has the same meaning as in Article (4) in the Second Schedule." By Section 5 of U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972, the following sub-sec­tions, numbered as sub-sections (2) and (3) were inserted in Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act: "(2) The State Government may by notification in the official Gazette, confer upon any District Judge or Additional District Judge the following jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887, for the trial, of all suits (irrespective of their value), by the lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determi­nation of his lease, or for the recovery from him of rent in res­pect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease or of compensation for the use and occupation there-of after such determination of lease, and may withdraw any jur­isdiction so conferred. Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, the expres­sion 'building' has the same meaning as in Article (4) in the Second Schedule to the said Act. (3) The State Government may by notification in the official Gazette delegate to the High Court its power under this section." Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act was further amended by Section 4 of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972, President's Act 'No. 19 of 1973) by adding the following sub-section (4) to Sec­tion 25; "(4) Where the jurisdiction of as Judge of a Court of Small Causes is conferred upon any District Judge or Additional Dis­trict Judge by notification under this section, then, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, all suits referred to in sub-section (2) shall be cognizable by Court of Small Causes." Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of Presidents' Act No. 19 of 1973 provides, inter alia, that Section 4 of that Act shall be deemed to have come into force on September 20, 1972.
(3.) SRI S.D. Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners, contended that Section 15 of the Small Cause Courts Act is the key section in that Act in regard to which suits can be tried as suits of small causes nature and that even after the amendment of that section by U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972, the pecuniary limit for trying a suit for eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease as a suit of small cause nature is only Rs. 5,000. He maintained that since the value of the present suit is far in excess Rs. 5,000, the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to try that suit as a suit of small cause nature.;