GUMAN MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THE landlord - respondent filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent for 9 months amounting to Rs. 720/- in respect of a house situated in the town of Sikri, Tehsil Nagar District Bharatpur. THE defence of the tenant-appellant was that the premises' rent was Rs. 10/- per month since 1962, and the plaintiff-landlord was not entitled to recover anything more than the said rent.
(2.) AFTER the evidence was recorded of both the parties, the suit was partly decreed holding that the standard rent was of Rs. 36/ -. The appeal filed by the land-lord-plaintiff was allowed and the cross objection of the defendant-appellant was dismissed by the first appellate court. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent before this Court that in the present suit, no second appeal is maintainable, in view of clear bar of S. 102 C. P. C. Section 102 C. P. C. reads as under: "102. No second appeal in certain suits.- No second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed three thousand rupees". The first question is whether the present one is a suit which does not exceed Rs. 1000/- the answer is positive, yes. The second clause is that nature of the suit should such which should be tried by small cause courts. According to the learned counsel for the appellant-tenant, this suit could not have been tried by small cause courts. It is difficult to appreciate the contention of Shri Garg in reply to the above objection that this suit was not triable by small cause courts. Obviously, the amount demanded in money simplicitor, on the basis of the monthly rent due. That being so, it. is certainly triable by small cause courts. Once it is certainly triable by small cause courts. Once it is held to be triable by small cause courts, it is obvious that the second appeal would not be entertained in view of the provisions of s. 102. C. P. C. Shri Garg, confronted with the above, submitted that this appeal should be treated as revision now. I am of the opinion that revision can only be entertained on the ground of error of jurisdiction as repeatedly, a number of times, held by the Apex Court while interpreting S. 115, C. P. C. , which reads as under: "115. Revision. (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit : Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceedings except where - (a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the parly applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or (b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. (2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any court subordinate thereto. "
(3.) OBVIOUSLY, there is no reason to permit this appeal to be converted into revision now. Prima facie, I am not satisfied that there is any error of jurisdiction. The three grounds mentioned in the application for converting into revision at para I failed to fulfill requirement of S. 115 C. P. C. Consequently, the second appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs, and the prayer for permitting the appeal to be converted into revision is also dismissed. .;