HIREMATH, J. ( 1 ) THE Second Appeal is against the judgment and decree of the Court of small Causes, Mysore dated 23-11-1977 confirming the Judgment and decree of the Court of First Additional First Munsiff, mysore, in O. S No. 794 of 1969 for arrears of rent filed by the respondent. The trial court decreed (he suit on 30-10-1976 for Rs, 1,209-88 paise being arrears of rent up to 1-10-1969, current interest was not allowed and parties were directed to bear their own costs. ( 2 ) THE Appeal came up before the court of Small Causes, Mysore, on a special Notification of the High Court in no. ROC. 3024/68-69, dated 20-10-1969, empowering that court to try appeals, against the Judgments, orders and decrees of the Principal First Munsiff, mysore, and under this Notification and the power confirmed under it, the learned judge of the Small Causes Court tried the suit after it was transferred to his file by the order of the District Judge from the file of the Principal Civil Judge, mysore. The Appellate court agreed with the trial court that privity of contract between the Appellant and the Respondent on the point of lease was proved and even on the quantum of rent due, the Appellate court did not find any reason to interfere. ( 3 ) IN the Second Appeal, the contentions raised were, firstly that no opportunity was given to examine the hand Writing Expert when the appellant had disputed the letter said to have been written by the respondent at the commencement of the tenancy; secondly, both the courts below committed an error in holding that there was privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent. The appeal was admitted only on these two substantial questions of law though there were other two grounds with regard to the appreciation of documentary evidence. ( 4 ) DURING arguments, the learned counsel Sri B. C. Udayashankar appearing for Sri Chandrashekharaiah urged that the admission of the respondent's husband that he had let out the premises to the appellant, was not considered by the courts below. He had filed a Criminal case in C. C. No. 6654/1969 against the present appellant alleging some criminal activities in the premises let out to him. But both the courts below considered this admission together with Ext. He had filed a Criminal case in C. C. No. 6654/1969 against the present appellant alleging some criminal activities in the premises let out to him. But both the courts below considered this admission together with Ext. P8 written by the appellant himself, the receipts passed and other evidence and found that the privity of contract was proved. That apart, the suit was admittedly between landlord and tenant to recover only rent of Rs. 1,320/- for the period already stated. Therefore, this was a simple suit for arrears of rent filed before the trial court of the Munsiff. Whether a Second Appeal would arise is the material point that has arisen during arguments, though perhaps during admission, this did not come up for consideration. ( 5 ) SECTION 102 C. P. C. reads as follows :-"102 No second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizable by courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed three thousand rupees. "it thus follows that Rs. 3000/- was substituted in place of Rs. 1000/- by the amendment of 1976. Thus whan the appeal came up for admission in the year 1978, this amendment was on the statute book and the subject-matter was less than Rs. 3,000/- and hence, Section 102 was clearly attracted when the appeal came to be admitted. This would certainly be a suit of the nature cognizable by the Court of Small Causes in view of the claim made and the subject-matter. Therefore, clearly Section 102 is attracted and the appeal does not lie. ( 6 ) EVEN otherwise, I have considered the other points, namely whether the trial court was in error in not giving opportunity to examine the Hand Writing expert and in holding that there was privity of contract between the parties. These are the two points urged and canvassed at the time of. admission. The judgment of the 1st Appellate Court reveals serious laches on the part of the appellant in not taking steps to get the commissioner if he was so serious to examine him. The First Appellate court has remarked that when the suit was posted for arguments on 15-6-1976, counsel for the defendant filed I. A. VIII for re opening the case for examining the hand Writing Expert. It was allowed and the Commissioner's fee was deposited. The First Appellate court has remarked that when the suit was posted for arguments on 15-6-1976, counsel for the defendant filed I. A. VIII for re opening the case for examining the hand Writing Expert. It was allowed and the Commissioner's fee was deposited. Thereafter, process fee was not paid and therefore, summons was not sent. Later on, The appellant went on changing the advocates. Two advocates retired and thereafter, it appears, none was serious about this matter. Therefore, the opportunity given by the Court was not availed of by the appellant and at this length of time the grievance that the trial court did not permit him to examine the Hand writing Expert, cannot be heard. ( 7 ) THE second aspect is one of privity of contract. "competency to grant a lease depends upon competency to transfer under Section 7. The lessor must therefore be competent to contract and have title or authority". (vide T. P. Act by Mulla at page 628 of 7th edition ). ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the respondent has mainly relied on Ext. P8 a letter given by the appellant at the time of commencement of the tenancy stipulating all the terms and it is addressed to the respondent. Her husband has deposed in the court that it is the respondent who is entitled to receive the rent and this obviously shows implied authority to the respondent to lease the premises and to receive the rent. Even the counter foil receipts are produced by the respondent. That being so, even though this respondent has no title there is sufficient material to show that she had authority both to grant the lease and to receive the rent in that view of the matter, even the second point does not survive. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .