Pramod Kumar Sharma vs Balvir Singh

Manoj Misra, J.—Supplementary affidavit filed today bringing on record certified copy of the decree, is taken on record. Office will therefore assign regular number to the revision as the defect no. 1 is removed.

Heard learned counsel for the defendant revisionist and Sri D.S. Pandey for the plaintiff respondents.

The present revision has been filed against judgement and decree dated 3.1.2017 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Ghaziabad whereby the plaintiff respondents'' suit for arrears of rent and eviction filed against the defendant revisionist has been decreed.

A perusal of the record would go to show that the plaintiff respondents insituted SCC Suit No. 46 of 2014 by claiming that they had purchased the accommodation in dispute of which the defendant was tenant at the rate of Rs. 3000/-. It was alleged that the defendant had been defaulter in payment of rent and therefore composite notice demanding arrears of rent as well as terminating tenancy under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was served on him, but, despite of service of notice, the defendant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the premises. The defendant revisionist contested the suit by claiming that the agreed rate of rent was not Rs. 3000/- per month but was Rs. 1500/- per month. The validity of notice was also challenged. The court below framed various issues and after considering the oral evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the agreed rent was Rs. 3000/- per month and the defendant had been defaulter in payment of rent. The court below also found that notice was duly served and there was nothing illegal in the notice and as such the tenancy was duly terminated. Accordingly, having come to the conclusion that the agreed rent was higher than Rs. 2000/- and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was therefore not applicable to the premises in question, decreed the suit.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that admittedly there was no documentary evidence to show as to what was the rate of rent agreed between the parties and therefore the court below was not legally justified in holding that the rate of rent agreed between the parties was Rs. 3000/- per month. It has also been argued that if the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable then the suit could not have been instituted in the court of Judge Small Causes and therefore the court below had no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit because if the Rent Control Act was not applicable, then the suit ought to have been instituted in a regular court.

Both the aforesaid submissions of counsel for the revisionist cannot be accepted because when the rate of rent is not fixed by any documentary evidence then the court can always examine the oral evidence and come to its own conclusion. The court below examined the oral evidence of the parties and found that the stand taken by the defendant was inconsistent inasmuch as in the written statement the rate of rent was disclosed as Rs. 1500/- per month whereas during the course of cross examination, the rate of rent was disclosed by him as Rs. 2000/- per month. The court below also observed that the defendant accepted receipt of notice demanding rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month but did not bring on record any document to show that the claim was refuted by sending a reply thereto. The court below found that considering the extent of the accommodation and the place where the accommodation was located as also the admitted position that letting had taken place in the year 2004, as per the own stand of the defendant taken during the course of his examination, accepted the claim of the plaintiff- landlord that the rate of rent was Rs. 3000/- per month. This being a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence led by the parties, can only be interfered with, if it is shown to be perverse or in ignorance of any relevant evidence or based upon inadmissible evidence or by misreading of evidence, which is not the case here. Accordingly, the finding returned that the rate of rent of the premises in question was Rs. 3000/- per month, calls for no interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

The contention that since the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable therefore the suit could not have been instituted in the court of Judge Small Causes is completely misconceived in view of the proviso to section 15 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, as applicable in the State of U.P., which provides that suits by the lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease or for recovery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease, or of compensation for use and occupation thereof after the determination of the lease, could be instituted before the court of Small Causes. The suits excepted from the cognizance of a court of Small Causes are mentioned in the second schedule. In the second schedule Entry No. 4, as amended in the State of U.P., provides for a suit for the possession of immovable property or for the recovery of an interest in such property, but not including a suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease and for the recovery from him of compensation for the use and occupation of that building after such determination of lease. Meaning thereby that a suit of the nature instituted in the instant case was cognisable by the Court of Judge Small Causes.

At last, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that by section 15 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, as applicable in the State of U.P., consequent to U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, with effect from 7th December 2015, the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Judge Small Causes Court has been enhanced to rupees one lac. But since the valuation of the present suit was Rs. 1,26,000/-, therefore it could not have been instituted and decided by the Court of Judge Small Causes.

The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted in view of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, as applicable in the State of U.P. Sub section (2) of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, as applicable in the State of U.P., provides that the High Court may, by notification in the official gazette, confer upon any District Judge and Additional District Judge the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, for the trial of all suits irrespective of their value, by the lessor, for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease, or for the recovery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease or of compensation for the use and occupation thereof after such determination of lease. Sub section (4) of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Court''s Act, 1887 provides that where the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes is conferred upon a District Judge or Additional District Judge by notification under this section, then, notwithstanding anything contained in section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Court''s Act, 1887, all suits referred to in Sub Section (2) shall be cognisable by Court of Small Causes.

In Mohd. Haneef v. Sunil Tuli; 2009(75)ALR 288, the Allahabad High Court had occasion to resolve the conflict between section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887. The Court held that there is no conflict in between the two provisions. It was observed that both the provisions can be read harmoniously and net effect of the same would be that jurisdiction up to the limit provided under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act shall be exercised by the Judge Small Causes Court under the provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, and as far as District Judge and Additional District Judge are concerned, they are empowered to exercise jurisdiction of the Judge Small Cause Court for unlimited valuation in suits of rent and eviction between lessor and lessee after determination of lease of a building.

In the instant case as the valuation of the suit was higher than rupees one lac, therefore, the Additional District Judge was empowered to exercise function of Judge Small Causes Court and had jurisdiction to decide the suit and as such the aforesaid plea of the revisionist also has no substance.

No other point was pressed. The Revision is dismissed.