JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's revision application against a decree of Judge, Small Causes, Jodhpur, decreeing a suit for recovery of rent of land against him.
(2.) THE sole question arising for decision in this case is whether the rent for the site of a house is recoverable by instituting a suit in the court of Small Causes. According to the finding of the learned Judge of Small Causes the plaintiff is the owner of a plot of land 25' x 25' which was let out by him to the father of the present defendant in 1933 on a rent of Rs. 2/- per month. The father of the defendant erected a hut on the land in which he was residing along with the present defendant. The father of the defendant has since died and the defendant is now residing in it. According to the finding of the trial court the defendant is a tenant of the land. The plaintiff is not the owner of the hut but the defendant is the owner of it. An objection was taken by the defendant that the suit for rent of land was not cognizable by the court of Small Causes as it falls under article (8) of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Small Cause Courts Ordinance, which runs as follows: "suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. (8) a suit for the recovery of rent, other than house rent unless the Judge of the Court of Small Causes has been expressly invested by the State Government with authority to exercise jurisdietion with respect thereto. The wordings of the above article are similar to those of Art. 8 of Sch. II to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. An examination of the wordings of article (8) goes to show that if the suit is for the recovery of house rent it is cognizable by the Court of Small Causes, but if it is a suit for the recovery of any other rent then it is not so cognizable. The present suit is one for the recovery of rent for the land only. It is not therefore cognizable by the Court of Small Causes. The trial court relied on the decision of a single Judge of the Nagpur High Court in Laxminarayan vs. Niyamat Masjid (l ). In that decision it was held that a suit for the ground rent of a site situated in a town which is neither revenue paying nor agricultural land is not excepted from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. Such a distinction is not warranted by the wordings of Art. 8. I am accordingly unable to hold that the decision of the Nagpur High Court lays down the law correctly. In this connection I may refer to a decision of the Oudh Chief Court in Mata Din vs. Imdad Khan (2) in which the Nagpur case was expressly dissented from and it was held that a suit for rent of a site is different from a suit for house rent and is not cognizable by a Small Cause Court, unless that court has been expressly invested with jurisdiction in this behalf. I accordingly allow the revision application, set aside the decree of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Jodhpur, and direct it to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to proper court. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs of the suit and the revision application. . ;