Judgment : This is an application filed by the petitioner in Ejectment Suit No. 12 of 2007 on the file of II Small Causes Court, Chennai to transfer the suit together with all the applications to the file of the XI Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai for joint trial with O.S. No. 5298 of 2007. The facts: 2. The petitioner is the landlord of the premises bearing R.S. No. 1537/10, Triplicane, which is the subject matter of the lease agreement executed with the first respondent. The petitioner has filed the Ejectment Suit No. 12 of 2007 to direct the respondents to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property to him after demolishing the superstructure. In the said suit, the first respondent has filed an application in M.P. No. 1874 of 2007 under Section 9 of the City Tenant Protection Act for the purpose of purchase of suit property at the price to be determined by the Court. 3. While the matters stood thus, the petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 5298 of 2007 before the XI Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai praying for a Decree of damages for use and occupation against the respondents. The said suit was also in respect of the property which is the subject matter of Ejectment Suit No. 12 of 2007. Both these proceedings are now pending before the respective suits. 4. By way of present transfer petition, the petitioner seeks to withdraw the proceedings from the II Small Causes Court, Chennai and transfer the same to the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai for the purpose of joint trial along with the connected suit in O.S. No.5298 of 2007. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for transfer, it was the contention of the petitioner that the subject matter in both the proceedings are one and the same and issue to be decided is also interconnected and as such, it would be in the interest of both the parties to have a joint trial of the cases. 6. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it was indicated that the transfer petition cannot, be ordered as prayed for by the petitioner as the Ejectment Suit is triable exclusively by the Court of Small Causes and the suit for damages is triable only by City Civil Court. 6. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it was indicated that the transfer petition cannot, be ordered as prayed for by the petitioner as the Ejectment Suit is triable exclusively by the Court of Small Causes and the suit for damages is triable only by City Civil Court. It was also their contention that the question of payment of damages would arise only in the event of decreeing the Ejectment Suit No. 12 of 2007. 7. The second respondent has also filed a counter wherein it was indicated that in the event of ordering joint trial, it would result in clubbing two suits of conflicting nature as according to them, the issue to be decided in both the matters are entirely different. 8. The only issue which arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether a suit exclusively triable by the Court of Small Causes could be transferred to a Civil Court for the purpose of trial along with the original suit. 9. The Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was enacted to amend the law relating to the Courts of Small Causes established in the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. Small Cause Courts Act was established under Section 5 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act and it shall be deemed to be a court subject to the superintendence of the High Court. 10. Local limits of the jurisdiction of each of these Small Causes Court shall be the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court. Small Cause Court is vested with the jurisdiction to try all suit of a civil nature where the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed Rs. 20,000/-. In Order to get jurisdiction to entertain a suit before the Small Cause Court, cause of action must have arisen either wholly or in part within the local limits of the Small Cause Court and the leave of the Court has to be taken before such institution, or either all or any of the defendants at the time of institution of the suit must have actually or voluntarily reside or carry on business or personally work for gain within such local limits of the Small Cause Court. 11. 11. Section 19 of the Act deals with cases in respect of which Small Cause Court shall have no jurisdiction. Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act deals with the suits regarding recovery of possession of immovable property. Section 41 of the Act enables a party to apply before the Small Cause Court for summons against occupants for the purpose of delivery of possession of the property in his possession. As per Section 48 of the Act, the Court of Small Causes was obliged to follow the procedure prescribed for a Court of first instance as per the Code of Civil Procedure. Similarly, Section 49 provides that recovery of possession of any immovable property shall be of no bar to the institution of a suit in the High Court or in the City Civil Court, Chennai for the purpose of trying the title in respect of such property. 12. The suit filed by the petitioner before the Small Cause Court is an ejectment suit within the meaning of Section 41 of the Act. As per Section 19 of the Act, Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction in respect of suits for determination of any other right or interest in the immovable property. The subsequent suit filed by the petitioner in O.S. No. 5298 of 2007 before the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai was a suit for damages for use and occupation. 13. Ejectment Suit No. 12 of 2007 as well as the suit in O.S. No. 5298 of 2007 filed for damages are interconnected. The ejectment suit pertains to the claim of delivery of possession and the suit O.S. No. 5298 of 2007 relates to the payment of damages for the period during which the first Respondent was in occupation of the premises. 114. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for General Power of transfer and withdrawal of cases. The ejectment suit pertains to the claim of delivery of possession and the suit O.S. No. 5298 of 2007 relates to the payment of damages for the period during which the first Respondent was in occupation of the premises. 114. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for General Power of transfer and withdrawal of cases. The said provision confers jurisdiction to the High Court as well as to the District Court to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or to withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it and try or dispose of the same; or transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. Therefore, this provision enables the High Court to exercise the power of transfer of cases pending before the Subordinate Court. 115. The main contention of the first Respondent in the transfer petition is about the competency of the City Civil Court to take up the ejectment suit filed as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. 116. The contention of the first Respondent with respect to lack of jurisdiction for the City Civil Court to take up the ejectment suit on transfer from the Small Cause Court by invoking Section 24 of the CPC has no basis in view of sub clause 4 of Section 24 which reads thus: (4) the Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this Section from a Court Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. 17. The statutory provision as contained in Section 24(4) was inserted only to tide over the difficulties which would arise on the point of jurisdiction inasmuch as the constitution of the Small Cause Court was made only as per the provisions of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. However, the Civil Courts are established as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the Civil Courts are established as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, it is very clear that in the event of transfer of civil suit from the Court of Small Causes to a Civil Court, the Transferee Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes for the purpose of such suit. 18. The jurisdiction of a Civil Court to take up the matter which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court was the subject matter in Kandasami Mudaliar case (1950) 2 MLJ 495 as well as in Gopal Rao v. Seetharamaiah (1953) 1 MLJ 250 as well as in Sankararama v. Padmanabha (1912) 23 MLJ 373 and different views were expressed by different learned Judges of this Court. 19. In Kandasami Mudaliar (supra) case, Mr. Justice Mack took the view that a small cause suit loses its character as such when it was withdrawn to the original side and tried along with the original suit in a common trial in which a common issue or issues arise for determination. 20. However, a different view was taken by Mr. Justice RAGHAVA RAO in Gopala Rao v. Seetharamaiah (supra), wherein he held that in a suit transferred from City Civil Court to the original side, only a revision would lie to the High Court, and not an appeal from the Decree passed in a suit originally filed as a small cause suit. 21. In Sankararama v. Padmanabha (supra) the issue was regarding a suit which was instituted as a small cause suit in a Subordinate Court which was transferred by the District Court to the District Munsifs Court for trial and disposal as an original suit and which was again transferred to another District Munsifs Court for trial and disposal. In the said context, it was held that a Decree by the latter District Munsifs Court was a Decree of a Court of Small Causes and no appeal would lie against such a Decree. 22. IN Murugesa Mudaliar v. Kesavulu Chetty (1929) 56 MLJ 649, Mr. In the said context, it was held that a Decree by the latter District Munsifs Court was a Decree of a Court of Small Causes and no appeal would lie against such a Decree. 22. IN Murugesa Mudaliar v. Kesavulu Chetty (1929) 56 MLJ 649, Mr. Justice ANANTHAKRISHNA AYYAR explained and distinguished the decision in Sankararama v. Padmanabha (supra) by holding that an Order of transfer passed under Section 24(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot invest a Court not having Small Cause jurisdiction with it, and that such an Order did not enable a Judge having small cause jurisdiction up to a particular limit to try as a small cause suit, a suit exceeding that limit, and therefore, the High Court had no power to transfer a small cause suit pending on the file of a Subordinate Judge to the Court of a District Munsif where the small cause jurisdiction of the District Munsif is less than the value of the small cause suit. 23. In view of the conflicting decisions rendered by MACK, J. in Kandasami Mudaliar (supra) case; RAGHAVA RAO, J. in Gopala Rao v. Seetharamaiah (supra), case; and ANANTHAKRISHNA AYYAR, J. in Murugesa Mudaliar v. Kesavulu Chetty (supra) case, the matter was referred to a Full Bench. 24. The Full Bench presided over this His Lordship Mr. Justice GOVINDA MENON considered the provisions of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 as well as Section 24 C.P.C and indicated the correct legal position thus: "Sub-section (4) of Section 24, G.P.G. pre-supposes want of small cause jurisdiction in the Court to which the small cause suit is transferred. That is why the words "Be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes" are used. If in fact the Court is actually one of small causes there is no necessity for the words "deemed to be". In these circumstances when a small cause suit is transferred to a Court not having small cause jurisdiction for the purpose of the trial of that suit the Court shall be deemed to be Court of small causes. That is, whatever is done in the trial of that suit by that Court would be considered as done by a Court of small causes. It is as if for the trial of that particular suit, the Court is invested with small cause powers of the requisite pecuniary limit. That is, whatever is done in the trial of that suit by that Court would be considered as done by a Court of small causes. It is as if for the trial of that particular suit, the Court is invested with small cause powers of the requisite pecuniary limit. This is what follows from the decision in Sankararama v. Padmanabha, AIR 1916 Mad 891 (2)(G). In Chockalingam v. Palaniappa, AIR 1932 Mad 683 (E), both the learned Judges agreed that the suit which was within the small cause jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge and beyond the small cause jurisdiction of the District Munsif can be transferred by the District Judge to the file of the District Munsif as the District Munsif was competent to try the suit within the meaning of Section 24(1), C.P.C. Though JACKSON J. has referred to the decision in Murugesa Mudaliar v. Kesavulu Chetty (1929) 56 MLJ 649 he has not expressly dissented from the view taken by ANANTHAKRISHNA AIYAR. In Kamakathammal v. Harihara AIR 1941 Mad 103 (F), PATNA JAIL SASTRIJ. relies upon AIR 1932 Mad 683 (E) for concluding that the District Court on may transfer any proceeding from a Court of small causes to a Court not having adequate small cause powers to deal with it as a Court of small causes. Nevertheless, the latter Court shall be deemed to be a Court of small causes for the purposes of the suit transferred. 25. In the above Full Bench decision in the Karur Jai Hind Pictures represented by its parter v. A.M. Shahul Hameed, their Lordships have also referred to a Full Bench decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court in Bhagawati Pande v. Badri Pande, (1931) ILR 54 All. 171 and the said reference would read thus: "A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bhagawati Pande v. Badri Pande, (1931) ILR 54 All. 171 considered the effect of Section 35, Provisional Small Cause Courts Act, and Section 24(4), C.P.C., and SUKIMAN A.C.J. at pp. 578-579 states that the Court to which the suit has been transferred under Section 24, C.P.C. would dispose of the suit as a Court of small causes and no appeal would lie from its decree even if it has no jurisdiction to try other small cause suits of equal value. 578-579 states that the Court to which the suit has been transferred under Section 24, C.P.C. would dispose of the suit as a Court of small causes and no appeal would lie from its decree even if it has no jurisdiction to try other small cause suits of equal value. The view expressed by ANANTHAKRISHNA AIYAR J. that a District Judge has no jurisdiction to transfer a small cause suit from the Court of the Subordinate Judge to the Court of the District Munsif not having adequate pecuniary jurisdiction as a small cause suit is opposed to the current of decisions not only of this Court but of other High Courts as well. If the learned Judges view is correct in our opinion there is no necessity for sub-section (4) of Section 24, C.P.C. at all. The reason is that if the Court to which the small cause suit is transferred has jurisdiction to try it as a small cause suit then sub-section (4) of Section 24, C.P.C. becomes redundant. The enactment of sub-section (4) itself presupposes the non-existence of small cause jurisdiction of the requisite limit. 26. Therefore, the City Civil Court trying a suit transferred or withdrawn under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is deemed to be a Court of Small Causes for the purpose of such suit. In view of the legal position enunciated in the judgment of the Full Bench which was also in line with the judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bhagawati Pande v. Badri Pande (supra), I am of the view that the objection raised by the first Respondent has no legal basis. 27. In the result, the Ejectment Suit No. 12 of 2007 on the file of the II Small Causes Court, Chennai is withdrawn and is transferred to the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai for the purpose of trial along with O.S. No. 5298 of 2007 on merits and as per law. 28. The transfer petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. 1 of 2008 is closed.