D.K.Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the order of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Garhshankar, affirming, on appeal, the decision of the Gram Panchayat of village Panam, tehsil Garhshankar.
(2.) THE claim before the Gram Panchayat by the Respondent was for recovery of Rs. 24/ - as arrears of rent. This claim, after investigation, was decreed by the Gram Panchayat; and against this decision a revision to the Subordinate Judge failed. The debtor, who is dissatisfied with this decision has come up in revision to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The short contention raised by the learned Counsel for the debtor is that the Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction to entertain such a claim. His contention is that a suit to recover arrears of rent is not covered by any of the clauses in Section 52 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 52 of the Act is in these terms: - 62. (1) Notwithstanding any other law for the time being in force and subject to the other provisions of this Act, the jurisdiction to try any of the suits mentioned hereunder shall vest in a panchayat. (a) Suits for the recovery of moveable property or the value or such property, (b) Suits foy money or goods due on contracts, or price thereof; (c) Suits for compensation for wrongfully taking or injuring moveable property, and (d) Suits mentioned In Clauses (j), (k), (l), and (n) of Sub -section (3) of Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. (2) The pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of a Panchayat with enhanced powers shall be five hundred rupees in respect of suits falling under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub -section (1) and two hundred rupees in respect of suits falling under Clause (d) of the said Sub -section. The pecuniary limits of jurisdiction of other Panchayats shall be two hundred rupees in respect of suits falling under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub -section (1) and one hindered rupees in respect of suits falling under Clause (d) of the said Sub -section.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, contends that such a suit is covered by Clause (b) of Sub -section (1). His contention is that the claim is for money ; and, therefore, the suit was rightly decreed by the Gram Panchayat. The expression "suits for money" finds mention in Order 8, Rule 6 and Order 25, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it has been observed by Chitaley in his Commentary on the Code of Civil Procedure at page 2364 of Volume II, that: - The illustrations to this rule show that no matter what the title may be, no matter whether such title arises ex debito or ex contractu, so long as the relief sought is to recover money, it is a suit for money. I must hold that when the framers of Section 52 of the Gram Panchayat Act were using the words "suits for money", they were using them in the same sense in which this expression has been used in the Code of Civil Procedure; and even on first principles, the claim is a claim to money. Arrears of rent is nothing but a debt due from the tenant to the landlord and the claim to recover that, debt would naturally be a claim to recover money. It is no doubt true that suits for recovery of rent have been classed as "Small cause Suit"; Under the Small Cause Courts Act, but they do not cease to be suits for money. Even otherwise Section 52 of the Act overrides all other enactments and confers jurisdiction or the Gram Panchayat to the limit of Rs. 500/ - so far as money claim are concerned. I, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel that suit for money to the extent of Rs. 500/ - if it is on account of rent is not competent before the Gram Panchayat.;