Urdu Education Society and Another vs Dinshaw Naoraji Printer

N.P. Chapalgaonkar, J.—Heard Shri P.V. Mandlik, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.R. Warma, learned Counsel for the respondent.

Respondent is the landlord of house bearing Municipal No. 3-11-1967(A) (old), 3-12-1980 (new C.T.S. No. 10159 situated at Shahgunj locality of Aurangabad city. This premises is let out to the petitioners for a monthly rent of Rs. 7963/- excluding electricity and water charge for running the school. Since the defendants failed to pay rent from 1-4-1985, a Small Cause Suit No. 379 of 1986 came to be filed in the Court of Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. at Aurangabad. Defendants resisted the claim. The learned Judge was pleased to decree the suit and directed that the rent Rs. 95,556/- which was already deposited in the Court be paid to plaintiff and he to recover interest of Rs. 17,200/- from the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. This decree dated 10-11-1988 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, J.D., Aurangabad is challenged in this revision application.

Shri P.V. Mandlik, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for interest to the tune of Rs. 17,200/- as is passed in this case. According to him, the jurisdiction vested in the Small Cause Court u/s 15 does not include any pecuniary jurisdiction to decide suit claim and jurisdiction vested in the Small Cause Courts u/s 26 is limited to the actual amount of the rent and does not include award of interest. He also submits that defendant was denied proper opportunity to participate in the suit and he was not allowed to lead evidence.

Shri B.R. Warma, learned Counsel for the respondent, firstly submitted that the revision is not maintainable in view of the alternate remedy by way of an appeal which has been specifically provided by section 26-A of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. If the Court of Small Causes passes a decree u/s 26, appeal to the District Court would be only remedy available to the party and, in view of this remedy, it would not be proper for this Court to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Shri Warma also submitted that the revisional jurisdiction vested in this High Court u/s 25 of the Act of 1887 is not available in case decree is passed u/s 26.

Chapter III of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 speaks about the jurisdiction of the Courts of Small Causes and sub-section (2) of section 15 lays down that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed two thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. State Government can increase this pecuniary jurisdiction upto Rs. 5000/-. Chapter IV of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act lays down practice and procedure for the Small Cause Courts. Section 25 from the said Chapter empowers High Court to call for any case from the Court of Small Causes for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree or order in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law and it may pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit. No appeal has been provided from the decree passed by the Court of Small Causes if it has exercised jurisdiction u/s 15. Section 24 of the said Act of 1887 provided for an appeal against orders passed by a Court of Small Causes in case that order is under Clause (ff) or Clause (h) of sub-section (1) of section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These are the orders for payment of cost u/s 35(A) or of imposing fine or directing arrest or detention in the civil prison of any person except where such arrest or detention is in execution of a decree. It, therefore, follows that the legislature intended that decrees passed by the Small Causes Court exercising its jurisdiction u/s 15, should not be appealable.

Chapter IV-A was added in the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 by Act No. 24 of 1984. Section 26 empowers Court of Small Causes to here the suits relating to the recovery of possession of certain immovable property and certain licence fee and rent. If the suit is of the nature specified in section 26, then it is triable by the Court of Small Causes irrespective of the valuation and section 26-A from the said Chapter provides an appeal to the District Court in respect of every such decree. If the suit is for the recovery of the Immovable property and is between licensor or licensee or landlord and a tenant or is for the recovery of the licence fees or charges or rent thereof, the suit is to be tried by the Court of Small Causes u/s 26. The legislature has made distinction between the suits which are triable by the Court of Small Causes u/s 15 and the suits which are triable by the said Court u/s 26. Looking to the nature of the suits triable u/s 26 which can be of any valuation, the legislature very rightly provided for an appeal u/s 26-A. The remedy of appeal u/s 26-A is not available to the suits tried in exercise of jurisdiction u/s 15. If the legislature provides a remedy of appeal, the remedy of revision should not be resorted to. Admittedly, the relation between the parties is that of the landlord and tenant and the suit is for the recovery of the rent and it is valued more than Rs. 95,000/- which was not triable in the exercise of pecuniary jurisdiction u/s 15. It was triable only u/s 26 of the Act and when a decree in such suit is passed, the remedy available is of appeal u/s 26-A.

I, therefore, discharge the rule holding that the revision is not maintainable. If petitioners - defendants want to challenge the decree, they may do so by filing appeal and while considering whether delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, the learned Judge shall consider the fact of petitioners pursuing the remedy of this revision. Whether proper opportunity to the defendants was given by the trial Court is also a question to be decided by the Court hearing appeal. Interim relief granted by this Court to continue for a period of 8 weeks. There be no order as to costs.

Rule discharged.