- (1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE appeal is directed against con current decrees of the trial Court and the first appellate Court directing eviction of the present two appellants who were held to be unauthorised occupants of the suit property. THE appeal is being pressed on the ground that the suit should not have been tried before the regular civil side as a court of small causes could only have the jurisdiction in the matter. THE array of the parties in the plaint suggests that the defendant No. 1 was described as tenant under the plaintiff while defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (the present appellants) were described as unauthorised occupants after the premises were physically vacated by the original tenant. THE plaintiff never accepted the present two appellants as tenants. THE written statement of these two appellants also indicate that they also denied any relationship of landlord and "tenant between the plaintiff and themsel ves. It is true that they had raised a plea that they were tenants under another per son and the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property. THEre has been a finding of fact on the question of ownership of the plaintiff respondent by the two courts. THE two courts have also found that the present appellants were nothing better than unauthorised occupants of the suit premises. Under these circumstances, it may not be stated that any relationship of landlord and tenant had ever existed be tween the plaintiff and those two appel lants so to bring the case within the pur view of Article 4 of Schedule 2 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. On this score, therefore, it may not be held that the suit was triable, so far the present appellants are concerned, before a Court of Small Causes. It may be viewed from another angle. The suit was filed not only against these two unauthorised occupants, it was against the original tenant also. The learned Counsel for the respondents sub mitted that the plaintiff had a right to evict the tenant as well as the unauthorised oc cupants and out of these two causes of action, atleast one was triable before a regular court and, as such the joining of the causes of action before the regular court was not at all illegal. I find sufficient force in this contention. A case law was cited before me as reported in AIR 1990 SC 212. It was an eviction matter before the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the respondents were sub tenants or direct tenants of the landlords. There was a concurrent finding of the trial Court and the first appellate Court that the respondents were sub-tenants. The Supreme Court ruled in this case that it was a finding of fact and no substantial question of law arose from these findings, which required to be probed in second appeal. Here was suit in which consistent ly the two courts had found that the present appellants were unauthorised oc cupants and this point of fact may not be operi to challenge in this second appeal. The only substantial question of law con cerning the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has already been answered. Under the said circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed. The interim order stands vacated. Appeal dismissed. .;