- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. This is the tenant's writ petition. It is against the ex pane order dated 20-5-1992, passed by respondent No. 2, the order dated 12-2-1999 rejecting the application of the tenant to set aside the ex pane order and the order dated 6-3- 1999 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the order dated 12-2-1999. Facts
(2.) RESPONDENTS No. 3 to 7 are the landlords. They let-out 10800 sq. feet of open piece of land to the petitioner by the registered lease deed dated 6-5-1968, for storage of petroleum products, motor ac cessories, etc. The respondents 3 to. 7 (the landlord for short) have filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes, respondent No. 2 for ejectment and arrears of rent. This suit was decreed ex pane on 20- 5- 1992. The petitioner has filed an application on 14-3-1996 for setting aside me ex. pane decree. This application was dismissed on 12-2-1999. The revision against the same was dismissed on 6-9-1999. Hence, the present writ petition. Points for determination I have heard Counsel for the par ties. The following points arise for deter mination: What is the nature of the property leased? Does the Court of Small Causes have jurisdiction in respect of open piece of land? : Can such objection to jurisdiction be taken at this stage? Was there sufficient cause for non-appearance? Should the ex-parte decree be set aside? Nature of property in dispute The land let out to the petitioner was an open piece of land. It was to be used as service station/filling station and for the sate of petroleum products, motor acces sories, etc. The tenant was at liberty to make construction in the open piece of land for these purposes. These construc tions were to remain the property of lessee and not of the lessor. The tenant was to remove his construction on the expiration of the lease' or the determination of the same. He was to hand over the vacant piece of land. This is clear from condition Nos. 1, 3and 4 of lease deed.
(3.) THE suit itself is for the recovery of referred to as the Act ). All suits of civil the open land and not of buildings. THE nature upto a limit specified in the Act are relief in the suit says so. 1 cognizable by the Court of Small Causes except those, which are mentioned in the Hnd Schedule to the Act. This '- THE respondent No. 2 decreed the suit on 20-05-1992. He also directed the petitioner to hand-over the open piece of land after removing his constructions. 2 THE lease was of open piece of land so was the suit and the decree. Jurisdiction-Small Causes Court The Small Cause Courts have been established under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). All suits of civil nature upto a limit specified in the Act are cognizable by the court of Small Causes except those, which are mentioned in the IInd Schedule to the Act. This is so provided in the Section 15 of the Act. The State of Uttar Pradesh has amended Sec tion 15 but is not material for the pur poses of this case.;