S. D. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are the applicants, being the trustees of Sunni muslim Wakf Committee (Board ). The opponents are the heirs and legal representatives of original opponent-Hasan Abubakar Malbari, who has expired during the pendency of the proceeding in the Small Causes Court and present opponents, as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased opponent, are before this Court. ( 2 ) THE trustees of the aforesaid Wakf Committee instituted P. S. R. P. Application no. 25 of 1985 in the Small Causes Court, at Ahmedabad, under S. 41 of the presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, against Hasan Abubakar Malbari, who has, during the pendency of the proceeding before the Small Causes Court, expired. It appears that, the premises owned by the original applicants/petitioners bearing m. C. No. 991/2 situated in the premises of Nawab Sujadkhan Masjid, opposite general Post Office, which comprised of a room, was given to the deceased-Hasan abubakar as a Bangi in the Masjid. It appears that, he was discharged from his service with effect from 1st March, 1985 and was called upon to hand over vacant possession of the room in his possession as a Bangi. It also appears that his licence to remain in possession as Bangi of the said premises was also revoked and, thereafter, application under S. 41 of the said Act came to be filed in the Small causes Court. The learned Small Causes Court Judge, Shri A. S. Sanghvi (as he then was), now the City Civil Court Judge, at Ahmedabad, rejected the said application by judgment and order dated 6th July, 1992, on grounds which, prima facie, appear to be immaterial, irrelevant and not sustainable in law while deciding application under S. 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order of the learned Small Causes Court Judge, the original applicants have preferred the present Civil Revision Application under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 4 ) THE learned Small Causes Court Judge, Shri A. S. Sanghvi, framed the following issues for determination :- (1) Whether the applicants prove that the disputed premises was given to the opponent for the residential purposes till the opponent continued in the service ? (2) Whether the applicants are entitled to recover back the possession of the disputed premises ? (2) Whether the applicants are entitled to recover back the possession of the disputed premises ? (3) Whether the opponent was a licensee and his licence was duly revoked ? (3a) Whether this application can be allowed against the legal representatives of the deceased opponent ? ( 5 ) WHILE giving the said room as Bangi to deceased Hasan Abubakar, the Wakf committee also got executed agreement dated 26th May, 1967, which is produced at Ex. 37, before the trial Court. ( 6 ) ON going through the points for determination which were raised by the leaned Small Causes Court Judge, there is no manner of doubt that while deciding the application under S. 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, the learned Small Causes Court Judge has thoroughly misdirected himself as to the scope, ambit and nature of his power under S. 41 of the said Act. ( 7 ) SECTION 41 of the said Act, which is to be found in Chapter VII, which is captioned as "recovery of Possession of Immovable Property", inter alia, provides that when any person has had possession of any immovable property situate within the local limits of the Small Causes Courts jurisdiction and of which the annual value at a rack-rent does not exceed two thousand rupees, as the tenant, or by permission, or another person, or of some person through whom such other person claims; and such tenancy or permission has determined or been withdrawn; and such tenant or occupier or any person holding under or by assignment from him (hereinafter called the occupant) refuses to deliver up such property in compliance with a request made to him in this behalf by such other person,; such other person (hereinafter called the applicant) may apply to the Small causes Court for a summons against the occupant, calling upon him to show cause, on a day therein appointed, why he should not be compelled to deliver up the property. In its application to the State of Gujarat, in S. 41, for the words "two thousand" the words "three thousand" were substituted by Gujarat Act 5 of 1969, s. 5 and Bombay Act 17 of 1952, S. 5 (4-11-1952 ). Now, in Gujarat the words "three thousand rupees" are substituted by the words "five thousand rupees" - Gujarat act, 20 of 1979, S. 9 (1-1-1980 ). Now, in Gujarat the words "three thousand rupees" are substituted by the words "five thousand rupees" - Gujarat act, 20 of 1979, S. 9 (1-1-1980 ). ( 8 ) UNDER the scheme of the said Act, a person who is alleged to be a licensee or a person who is put in possession has the remedy under S. 46 to file an application, inter alia, seeking declaration that the application of the applicant under s. 41 is, in fact, an act of trespass and, on making such application, he is required to apply under S. 47 for stay of proceedings on the occupant giving security to bring suit against the applicant. Section 47 of the said Act, as amended by the State of Gujarat, in its application to the City of Ahmedabad, reads as under :-"47. State of proceedings on occupant giving security to bring suit against applicant : Whenever on an application being made under S. 41 the occupant bind himself, with two sureties, in a bond for such amount as the Small Causes Court thinks reasonable, having regard to the value of the property and the probable costs of the suit next hereinafter mentioned, to institute without delay a suit in the High court against the applicant for compensation for trespass and to pay all the costs of such suit in case he does not prosecute the same or in case judgment therein is given for the applicant, the Small Causes Court shall stay the proceedings on such application until such suit is disposed of. If the occupant obtains a decree in any such suit against the applicant, such decree shall supersede the order (if any) made under S. 43. Nothing contained in S. 22 shall apply to suits under this section. In its application to the City of Ahmedabad, in S. 47 :- (i) for the words occupant binds himself, substitute the words the occupant, at the earliest opportunity, and in any event before filing any statement of defence, binds himself; and (ii) for the words high Court, substitute the words ahmedabad City Civil Court - Guj. Act 19 of 1961, Secs. 18 and 21 and Schedule (4-11-1961)". 9. Act 19 of 1961, Secs. 18 and 21 and Schedule (4-11-1961)". 9. Undoubtedly, in the present case, after the application was filed by the trustees of the Wakf Committee, the person who was put in possession of the room as a bangi did not apply under S. 46 nor did he bring the suit under S. 47, as reproduced hereinabove. ( 9 ) THE learned Small Causes Court Judge accepted or recorded a positive finding that deceased Hasan Abubakar was given the premises in question by the committee as Bangi and, admittedly, he has not been paid any salary by the trust or Wakf Committee every month. He has also accepted the fact that the room in question was given to the deceased Hasan Abubakar as a licensee as he was serving as a Bangi in the Masjid under an agreement. Subsequently, after discussing the oral evidence of the witnesses, more particularly the evidence of the Cashier of the wakf Committee, he has found that the deceased Hasan Abubakar was paid the salary and payment of such salaries was proved by the entries from the Salary Register of the Wakf Committee. He has also recorded a finding that the genuineness of the said register cannot be doubted and he has relied upon the entry Nos. 38 to 40 of the year 1967 and entry Nos. 58 to 66 of the year 1984-85. He has, thereafter, recorded a finding :"it is clearly established that the deceased Abubakar was paid full salary and no amount was deducted from his salary towards the rent. There is no reason not to believe these entries. These entries clearly corroborate the version of the petitioner that no amount was deducted from the salary of Hasan Abubakar and that the deceased Hasan Abubakar had never paid the rent of the disputed room". ( 10 ) HAVING so reached the finding, he has misdirected himself in putting an absolutely unwarranted and uncalled for question in the context of S. 41 of the said Act. He has, in paragraph 6 of the judgment, made the following observations :-"now, the question is whether the deceased Hasan Abubakar was occupying the disputed room as a licensee or as a tenant. He has, in paragraph 6 of the judgment, made the following observations :-"now, the question is whether the deceased Hasan Abubakar was occupying the disputed room as a licensee or as a tenant. So far as the case of the deceased Hasan abubakar is concerned, there is no an iota of evidence on record to show that deceased Hasan Abubakar had paid any rent to the petitioner-trust. However, the fact remains that since 1967 till the date of filing of this application the deceased hasan Abubakar was enjoying the exclusive possession of the disputed room uninterrupted and unobstructed. This exclusive possession on the part of the deceased Hasan Abubakar clearly creates a right of tenancy in his favour and this right cannot be said to be a right of licensee. Such a long exclusive possession on the part of the deceased Hasan Abubakar clearly gives rise to a presumption that he must have been enjoying the possession of the disputed premises as a tenant. I am conscious of the fact that this Court cannot give any finding about the right of tenancy created in favour of the deceased Hasan Abubakar but at least it can be presumed that such a long exclusive possession on the part of the deceased Hasan abubakar could not be that of a licensee. " ( 11 ) BEING fully conscious of the fact that the Court was a Court of very limited jurisdiction, supposed to make inquiry under S. 41 of the said Act only, he unfortunately permitted himself to be carried away by a fact which was not even the defence of deceased Hasan Abubakar. Having totally forgotten the scope, nature and ambit of S. 41 of the said Act, he proceeded to record a finding that the deceased Hasan Abubakar who was inducted as a licensee by the Wakf Committee; was in exclusive possession of the room in question and that would create a tenancy in his favour; and that such a right cannot be said to be a right of licensee. The learned Small Causes Court Judge was not deciding a dispute between the landlord and the tenant in which case the matter would have been covered by the Bombay rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The learned Small Causes Court Judge was not deciding a dispute between the landlord and the tenant in which case the matter would have been covered by the Bombay rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. He was very much conscious of the fact that he was deciding an application under S. 41 of the said act where the licensee or person who was inducted as licensee by the Wakf committee was required to institute an application under Secs. 46 and 47 for the purpose of declaration that the action of bringing an application under S. 41 was an act of trespass on the part of the Wakf Committee and he was required to apply for stay of such proceeding in the City Civil Court within the stipulated time. For the reasons best known to Shri A. S. Sanghvi, the then Small Causes Court Judge, blatantly misdirected himself in law and dragged himself into the controversy which was not even raised by the deceased Abubakar. On such reasoning, he rejected the application of the Wakf Committee under S. 41 by the impugned order, least realising thereby that the remedy which was available to the licensee or person who is inducted in the premises under S. 41 of the said Act by resorting to Secs. 46 and 47 of the said Act was not availed of and he being a Court of very limited jurisdiction cannot open up Pandoras box and cannot create a case which was not even pleaded by the deceased Hasan Abubakar. ( 12 ) HOWEVER, the only question which is required to be answered is as to whether in proceeding under S. 41 of the said Act of 1882, when the licensee expires, the proceedings can be continued against legal representatives of the deceased and the division Bench of the Bombay High Court, to which His Lordship Palekar, J. , who was then elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court, was a party took the view that ejectment proceedings under S. 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act are for enforcing property rights and for recovery of properties. These are not proceedings relating to personal causes of action and they do not die with the death of a party to the proceedings whether he be an applicant or opponent. These are not proceedings relating to personal causes of action and they do not die with the death of a party to the proceedings whether he be an applicant or opponent. As such, those proceedings can always be continued against legal representatives of a deceased party to the proceedings. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, in my opinion, the judgment and order of Shri A. S. Sanghvi, the then learned Small Causes Court judge, rejecting the application of the Wakf Committee, is thoroughly misconceived in law as well as on facts and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. The judgment and order in P. S. R. P. Application No. 25 of 1985 dated 6th July, 1992 is hereby quashed and set aside and warrant for possession is ordered to issue against the opponents. The writ of the order to be sent down to the Small Causes Court, ahmedabad within a week from today and a copy of the judgment and order of this Court should also be sent down to Shri A. S. Sanghvi, who is now the Judge of the City Civil Court, at Ahmedabad. ( 13 ) IN the result, the Civil Revision Application succeeds. Rule is made absolute. The warrant for possession of the premises in question shall issue against the heirs within a month from today. There shall be no order as to costs. .