JUDGMENT S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - The Petitioner has instituted a SCC Suit No. 22 of 1981 against the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 which is pending in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Lucknow. In that suit the Plaintiff (Petitioner) apart from claiming the reliefs of eviction of the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 from that house as also the arrears of rent etc., has also claimed a relief for compensation amounting to a sum of Rs. 26, 130/- for the damage which is said to have been caused to the building by the opposite parties. The trial Court itself objected to the inclusion of the relief for compensation for a sum of Rs. 26, 130/- for damage said to have been caused to the building on the ground that a relief of that nature could not be granted by a Court of Small Causes and the suit was not maintainable. The trial Court after hearing the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff (Petitioner) held that it had no jurisdiction to grant that relief. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that a suit for recovery of compensation against a tenant for damage caused by him to the building which was let out to him would lie in the Small Cause Court as the Second Schedule does not provide that such a suit would be excepted from the cognizance of that Court. He has also contended that since the building is in occupation of opposite parties 2 to 4 as tenant and a suit for their eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation has already been filed against them, a relief for recovery of compensation for damage caused to the building by them can also be included in that suit in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. 3. The jurisdiction of the Court of Small Cause has been defined by the provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 Section 15 of the Act provides that: 2. (1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of small causes by which the suit is triable. (1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of small causes by which the suit is triable. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 provides that "Subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five hundred rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. Sub-section (3) provides that 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 rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of small causes mentioned above. There has been local amendments in the section and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of small causes has been raised. 4. Article 4 of the Second Schedule of the Act as amended in U.P. provides as under: Article 4-A suit for 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. 5. A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building in his occupation and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation is cognizable by a Small Cause Court in view of the amendments introduced in Article 4. The amendment however does not cover a suit for recovery of compensation for damage caused to the building by a tenant. Such a suit is based on the tortious liability of a tenant and the breach of the statutory duty specified in the Transfer of Property Act. Damage caused to the building by a tenant may, in some cases, also amount to mischief within the meaning of Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, a suit for the recovery of compensation would not be cognizable by a Small Cause Court in view of Article 35 of the Second Schedule of the Act. Damage caused to the building by a tenant may, in some cases, also amount to mischief within the meaning of Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, a suit for the recovery of compensation would not be cognizable by a Small Cause Court in view of Article 35 of the Second Schedule of the Act. The trial Court was, therefore, justified in holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim for the recovery of compensation for damage caused to the building. It was also justified in asking the Plaintiff (Petitioner) to make necessary amendments in the plaint so as to exclude the relief claimed by the Petitioner for recovery of Rs. 26, 130/- as compensation for the injury allegedly caused to the building by the opposite parties. 6. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that because he has filed a suit against the opposite parties for their eviction, he is entitled to include the claim for compensation also in the same suit in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings is also not tenable. The claim for compensation for the injury caused to the property is based on an altogether different cause of action. It is no doubt permissible to a Plaintiff to unite different causes of action in the same suit against the same Defendant and in view of the specific provision contained in Order II, Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure, claim for damages for breach of any contract under which the property is held can be joined with a suit for recovery of immovable property but then the question of jurisdiction of the Court in which such a suit is filed cannot be ignored. If the claims based on different causes of action are triable by the same Court, then alone those claims can be joined in the same suit to the extent that such joined is permissible under law. 7. In the instant case, the claim for recovery of damages on account of the injury said to have been caused to the building by the opposite parties is clearly nut cognizable by the Court of Small Causes and as such it cannot be joined with the suit for the eviction of the opposite parties from the said building. 8. The petition lacks merits and is dismissed summarily.