JUDGMENT D.M. Chandrashekhar, C.J. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge on issue No. 1 in S.C.C. Suit No. 69 of 1969. The issue was tried as a preliminary issue and he held that he had jurisdiction to try the suit. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the defendants have come up in revision. The suit is for ejectment of the defendantrespondents from the suit premises. The suit it valued at Rs. 19,800/. The defendants contended that since the value of the subject matter is above Rs. 5,000, the suit could not be tried as Small Cause Suit in view of subsection (3) of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Small Cause Courts Act') (Central Act No. IX of 1946). That subsection in the Central Act reads: "15. Cognizance of suits by Court of Small Causes (1) ........ ...... (2) ..... ..... (3) Subject as aforesaid, the State Government may, by order, in writing direct that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed one; thousand shall be cognizable by a court of Small Causes mentioned in the order." By Section 2 of the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 27 of 1972) the following proviso to that subsection has been added: "Provided that in relation to suits by the lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lessee, for 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, the reference in this subsection to two thousand rupees shall be construed as a reference to five thousand rupees. ExplanationFor the purposes of this subsection, the express 'building' has the same meaning as in Article (4) in the Second Schedule." By Section 5 of U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972, the following subsections, numbered as subsections (2) and (3) were inserted in Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act: "(2) The State Government may by notification in the official Gazette, confer upon any District Judge or Additional District Judge the following jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause Court 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, and may withdraw any jurisdiction so conferred. Explanation For the purposes of this subsection, the expression 'building' has the same meaning as in Article (4) in the Second Schedule to the said Act. (3) The State Government may by notification in the official Gazette delegate to the High Court its power under this section." Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act was further amended by Section 4 of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972, President's Act 'No. 19 of 1973) by adding the following subsection (4) to Section 25; "(4) Where the jurisdiction of as Judge of a Court of Small Causes is conferred upon any District Judge or Additional District Judge by notification under this section, then, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, all suits referred to in subsection (2) shall be cognizable by Court of Small Causes." Subsection (3) of Section 1 of Presidents' Act No. 19 of 1973 provides, inter alia, that Section 4 of that Act shall be deemed to have come into force on September 20, 1972. Sri S.D. Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionistpetitioners, contended that Section 15 of the Small Cause Courts Act is the key section in that Act in regard to which suits can be tried as suits of small causes nature and that even after the amendment of that section by U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972, the pecuniary limit for trying a suit for eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease as a suit of small cause nature is only Rs. 5,000. He maintained that since the value of the present suit is far in excess Rs. 5,000, the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to try that suit as a suit of small cause nature. It is a well accepted rule of construction that several section of an Act should be construed harmoniously. There is no reason to think that Section 15 of the Small Cause Courts Act has any special position and overrides other sections of the Act. If the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 15 of the Small Cause Courts Act, stood by itself, the pecuniary limit for a suit for eviction of a lessee from a building after determination of his lease as suit of small cause nature would be only Rs. 5,000/. But subsection (2) of Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act (inserted by U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972) makes an exception by providing that where a District Judge or an Additional District Judge functions as a Small Causes Court, there is no pecuniary limit to try such suits as suits of small cause nature. It is well known that ordinarily the jurisdiction under the Small Causes Courts Act is exercised 'by Judicial Officers of the ranks of Civil Judges and Munsifs. Keeping in view the Status of such Judicial Officers, the pecuniary limit of Rs. 5,000 has been fixed by the proviso to Section 15 (3) of "the Small Cause Courts Act. The intention of the Legislature appears to be that where such jurisdiction is exercised by a Judicial Officer of the rank of District Judge or Additional District Judge, there should be no pecuniary limit to his jurisdiction to try such suits for eviction as suits of small causes nature. The intention of the Legislature appears to be that where such jurisdiction is exercised by a Judicial Officer of the rank of District Judge or Additional District Judge, there should be no pecuniary limit to his jurisdiction to try such suits for eviction as suits of small causes nature. In view of subsection (2) of Section 25 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge was, in my opinion, right in overruling the preliminary objection of the defendants and holding that he had jursdiction to try the suit for eviction as a suit of small cause nature though the pecuniary value of the suit exceeded Rs. 5,000. In the result, this revision petition is not admitted, but is dismissed.