JUDGMENT Amitav Banerji, J. - The point raised in this Civil Revision is an interesting one. A suit for the ejectment of a tenant and for the recovery of arrears of rent in respect of a building governed by the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, I9i2 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was filed in the court of Judge Small Causes, Moradabad in 1975. The suit was contested and the parties led evidence. The Judge, Small Causes Court gave his decision decreeing the suit by his judgment dated 25th September, 1975. A revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause court Act was filed before the District Judge. The Additional District Judge, who heard the revision by his order dated 18.11.1976 dismissed the same. In the Revision, it was urged that the trial court was not competent to hear the suit and the decree passed by it was a nullity. This plea was rejected. In the Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure filed in this Court, it has been contended that the trial court was not a competent court to try the suit, as its jurisdiction in respect Tahsil Amroha was taken away, and therefore the suit could only be tried in the court of Civil Judge on the regular side. It was further contended that in any event the applicant had been prejudiced and there had occasioned failure of justice, for he has been deprived of a right of appeal. The question for consideration therefore is whether the suit had been tried by a court competent to hear and decide it. A further question would arise whether in the instant case, this court ought to interfere with the order when no objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the court trying to suit and more so when nothing has been pointed out in regard to the procedure followed by the trial court. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is no denial that a decree passed by a court having no jurisdiction is a nullity. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is no denial that a decree passed by a court having no jurisdiction is a nullity. In the case of Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 Supreme Court 340, Venkatarama Ayyar, J. speaking for the Supreme Court held : - "It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up when ever and where ever it is sought to he enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. It was further laid down : "A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether, it is in respect of the subject matter strikes at the very authority of the court to pass a decree and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties." What is, therefore, to be seen in the present case is whether the court trying to suit was a court lacking jurisdiction to try the suit. 3. The suit was filed in the court of Judge, Small Causes, Moradabad on the 15th April, 1975. On the 22nd of September, 1972, the court of Judge small Causes, Moradabad was conferred with jurisdiction to try suits for arrears of rent and ejectment from buildings. By the Notification No. 526 dated 25th October, 1972, all Civil Judges and Munsifs were given the power to try suits as a court of Small Cases where there was no court of Small Causes in the district. The jurisdiction of such Munsif was limited to suits upto a valuation of Rs. 1,000/- and to that of the Civil Judge upto a valuation of Rs. 5,000/- and to that of the District Judge more than Rs. 5,000/- The jurisdiction of the Judge small Cause Court, Moradabad showed that his jurisdiction extended over the Tahsil of Moradabad, Amroha and Thakurdwara. By the Notification dated 30th April, 1973 Amroha Tahsil was taken away from the jurisdiction of the Judge Small Causes Court. Since the building from which the ejectment was sought lay in Hasanpur, with in Amroha Tahsil, it was urged that the Judge Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. 4. By the Notification dated 30th April, 1973 Amroha Tahsil was taken away from the jurisdiction of the Judge Small Causes Court. Since the building from which the ejectment was sought lay in Hasanpur, with in Amroha Tahsil, it was urged that the Judge Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. 4. There is no dispute that after the coming in force of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act 37 of 1972), suits by lessors for the eviction of lessees from buildings became suits cognizable by courts of Small causes. By the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 15, the suits of the aforesaid nature of which the valuation did not exceed Rs. 5,000/-, the State Government was empowered to direct that they shall be cognizable by courts of Small Causes mentioned in the order. By the amendment of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, the State Government was empowered to confer powers upon Civil Judges and Munsifs to entertain suits for eviction from buildings and for rent or compensation for use and occupation upto such value not exceeding one thousand rupees in the case of a civil Judge or five hundred rupees in the case of a Munsif as it thought fit. By further amendment to sub section (3) of section 25, the State Government was empowered a delegate to the High Court its power of conferring the jurisdiction of a Judge of a court of Small Causes upon District Judges, Additional District Judges, Civil Judges and Munsifs. Thereafter, a number of notifications were issued. Notifications Nos. 525 and 526 were issued on the 25th October, 1972. By the first notification the jurisdiction of a Judge of court of Small causes for the trial of all suits irrespective of their value, which were for eviction from a building or for recovery of rent or for compensation for use and occupation, was conferred upon all District Judges and Additional District Judges. By the second notification, the High Court conferred upon all Civil Judges and Munsifs posted in a district, where there was no court of Small Causes, the jurisdiction of a Judge of Small causes for trial of suits for eviction from buildings for rent or for compensation for use and occupation up to the value of Rs. 5,000/- upon Civil Judges and upto the value not exceeding Rs. 1,000/- upon the Munsifs. 5,000/- upon Civil Judges and upto the value not exceeding Rs. 1,000/- upon the Munsifs. By a third notification No. 156 issued on March 29 of 1973, the High Court conferred powers, as contained in Notification No. 526 on all Civil Judges and Munsifs, who were posted in ten districts including Moradabad. In the case of Kailash Chand v. Lalta Prasad, 1975 A.W.C. 658 the effect of the Amending Act 37 of 1972 was extensively considered. G.C. Mathur, J. observed as follows : "The combined effect of these notifications was that suits by lessors for the eviction of lessee from buildings after the determination of the leases or for the recovery from them of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the leases or for compensation for the use and occupation thereof after such determination of the leases which, by virtue of the amendments, had become suits of small cause nature, were now to be cognizable by the following courts : (i) Suits of the value not exceeding Rs. 1,000/- by Munsifs; (ii) Suits of the value not exceeding Rs. 5,000/- by Civil Judges, and (iii) Suits of any value by District Judges and Additional District Judges :- After the amendments and the notifications such suits could be filed only in the above mentioned courts according to the valuation of the suits. In the present case, the suit was instituted in the court of Small causes, Moradabad. Shri B.K. Sharma, who tried the case as Judge, Small Cause Court, was Civil Judge, Moradabad on the 26th September, 1975. The valuation of the present suit is more than one thousand rupees. It was a suit by the lessor for the eviction of the lessee for arrears of rent and compensation for use and occupation. Such a suit lay in the court of Small Causes. Originally, the Judge, Small Cause Court, Moradabad had jurisdiction over three Tahsils, Moradabad, Amroha and Thakurdwara. Subsequently, his power in respect of Tahsil Amroha was withdrawn. Nevertheless, he was a Civil Judge who also exercised the power of a Judge, Small Cause court in respect of certain areas. Even though Amroha Tahsil was taken away from the jurisdiction of the Judge, Small cause court on April 30, 1973, he was a Civil Judge, and as such, by virtue of the Notifications Nos. Nevertheless, he was a Civil Judge who also exercised the power of a Judge, Small Cause court in respect of certain areas. Even though Amroha Tahsil was taken away from the jurisdiction of the Judge, Small cause court on April 30, 1973, he was a Civil Judge, and as such, by virtue of the Notifications Nos. 526 of 1972 and 156 of 1973, he had powers to try suits for eviction from buildings and for rent or compensation for use and occupation in respect of suits upto the valuation of five thousand rupees. The argument that since Amroha Tahsil was taken away from the jurisdiction of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Moradabad, he could not try a suit arising from that area in his capacity as a Civil Judge is misconceived. As been above, by virtue of the Amending Act 37 of 1972 and the Notifications issued by the High Court, All Civil Judges in Moradabad were invested with the power of a Judge, Small Cause Court in respect of suits for eviction of tenants from buildings and also for rent and damages. All such suits were to be tied as suits of small Cause nature. Shri B.K. Sharma, the Judge, Small Cause Court, was also a Civil Judge, and even if it be held that a court of Small Causes he had no jurisdiction to try a suit arising from Amroha Tahsil, he could try the suit in his capacity as a Civil Judge exercising the power of Judge, Small Cause Court. It is significant in this case that no objection to the trial of the suit by Shri B.K. Sharma in his capacity either as a Judge, Small Cause court or as a Civil Judge was ever raised before him. The applicant did not complain about the lack of jurisdiction. Nothing was pointed out to show that there was any irregularity in the procedure followed by Shri B.K. Sharma. The applicant has not complained at any stage that he was not afforded any opportunity during the trial of the suit of leading evidence or cross-examining an of the witnesses. It is, therefore, apparent that there has not taken place any illegality in the trial of the suit. 5. The only grievance was that if the suit had been tried on the original side, the applicants could have argued the appeal on questions of fact as well. It is, therefore, apparent that there has not taken place any illegality in the trial of the suit. 5. The only grievance was that if the suit had been tried on the original side, the applicants could have argued the appeal on questions of fact as well. After the Amending Act 37 of 1972 came in force on the 20th September, 1972, all suits for the eviction of a lessee by the lessor from a building and for the recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation could only be tried as suits of the nature of small cause. No. appeal was contemplated against the degrees passed in such suits. Since the suit was to be tried either before the court of small causes or by courts invested with the powers of a court of Small Causes, the question of filing any appeal did not arise. The provision was only for a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The suit could not be tried on the regular side and, consequently, there arose no question of filing regular First Appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure . Since the decree passed was by a Court of Small causes, only a revision lay. 6. In the present case, a revision was filed. The revision has been decided after hearing the parties. The contention that there has been a consequent failure of justice cannot, in the circumstances of the present case, be accepted. If the suit was tried by a proper court having jurisdiction and in accordance with law, there can be no question of a consequent failure of justice. As seen above, in the present case, the suit was tried by an officer, who, in addition to his being the Judge, Small Cause Court, was also a Civil Judge and as such, was empowered to try the present suit as a suit of small cause nature. Only a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause courts Act lay against his order. The parties had an opportunity of raising all the relevant points before the revisional court. The learned District Judge has agreed with the conclusions of the trial court on the merits also. On the question of want of jurisdiction, I hale already indicated that the trial court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The parties had an opportunity of raising all the relevant points before the revisional court. The learned District Judge has agreed with the conclusions of the trial court on the merits also. On the question of want of jurisdiction, I hale already indicated that the trial court had jurisdiction to try the suit. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was any consequent failure of justice. 7. For the reasons given above, I find no merits in this revision and it is hereby dismissed with costs. The stay order is vacated, and the record of the case shall be sent down to the court below at the earliest.