Judgment 1. A suit on the small causes jurisdiction was filed before the learned District Munsif, Mayiladudurai to recover a sum of Rs.197.55 representing the rent due for the land in question. The suit was decreed. Hence the defendant is before this Court in this revision. 2. I heard Mr.S.Soundhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. On facts, the learned trial Judge found that there exists a relationship of landlord-tenant between the predecessors in interest for the parties before the lower court, who are now before this Court and it continued even thereafter. The case of the tenant that the tenancy is in existence for well over 30 years; no rents whatsoever were collected and therefore he perfected his title by adverse possession, was not accepted. Therefore, when this finding is based on evidence and appreciation of the materials placed before the court, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the said finding and interfere in this revision. Ofcourse, one another point of importance had been raised before the lower court in the written statement filed, relying upon Art.8 to Schedule 2 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. There is no material available in the order of the lower court as to whether the above referred to point was argued or not. However, since the learned counsel for the petitioner argued this point; it having been raised as a defence in the written statement and it being a pure question of law, I allowed the revision petitioner to advance arguments on that. 3. In support of his legal defence, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice Art.8 of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 which reads as follows: The opening words in the second schedule reads as follows: “Suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes” Art.8 to the second schedule reads as follows: “A suit for the recovery of rent, other than house-rent, unless the Judge of the Court of Small Causes has been expressly invested by the State Government with authority to exercise jurisdiction with respect thereto.” In other words, all suits for recovery of rent, except suits for recovery of house rent have been exempted from the purview of the Court of Small Causes jurisdiction. Under Sec.15 of the said Act, 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. A reading of Art.8 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, prima facie disables the Court of Small Causes from taking cognizance of the suits other than a suit for house rent. It is seen that Art.8 itself empowers the State Government with power to expressly invest in a Court of Small Causes with authority to exercise jurisdiction in respect of such excepted suits as well. 4. In this context, Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the respondent brought to my notice a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Addanki Rupulayya and another v. Imella Annaji Rao Addanki Rupulayya and another v. Imella Annaji Rao Addanki Rupulayya and another v. Imella Annaji Rao , 1984 An.W.R. 226 wherein a similar point had been raised. The learned Judge, in that judgment noticing that the notification itself could not be traced found that as early as 24th January, 1888, a Notification was made by the then Madras Government (during that time it was a composite State) as contemplated under Art.8 in the second schedule to the Act empowering all Subordinate Judges and District Munsifs to try on their small causes side all suits for rent falling within the pecuniary limit of their special jurisdiction. In view of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court relying upon the very early Notification of the then Madras Government, I have to hold that the suit out of which the present revision has arisen is definitely a suit cognizable by the Court of Small Causes. Under these circumstances, even on this legal ground, the revision fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.