Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal was admitted on 31.10.2011 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether in view of U.P. Amendment to Section 15 of Provincial Small Causes Act, suit for eviction of tenant valuation of which is more than Rs.25000/- is entertainable by J.S.C.C. or not? 2. Whether question of jurisdiction could be raised before the appellate court for the first time? On the date on which the appeal was admitted Sri A.N. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant stated that he was ready to argue the appeal without record. Learned counsel for respondent did not object to that. Accordingly the appeal was directed to be put up for hearing on 3.11.2011 and on 3.11.2011 arguments of learned counsel for both the parties were heard on the merit of the Second appeal. This is landlord's Second Appeal arising out of O.S. no.341 of 2004. Property in dispute is a shop bearing number 348 situate in Sadar Bazar Jhansi in which respondent Bata India Ltd. is tenant. The plaintiff purchased the shop in dispute from its previous owner- landlord Sanjiv Arora through registered sale deed dated 16.4.2003. Tenant respondent is tenant of the shop in dispute since 2.6.1988 i.e. since much before its purchase by plaintiff. After purchasing the shop in dispute plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant on 28.4.2003 and intimated the tenant about the purchase of the shop by him. It was further pleaded in the plaint that the lease deed dated 2.6.1988 expired on 31.12.2001. It was further pleaded that under the lease deed lease could be extended for a further period of 5 years w.e.f. 1st January 2002 on the enhanced rent to be fixed with the consent of the parties and even though the tenant through letter dated 5.5.2001 expressed its intention for extension of the lease to the previous owner, however, enhanced rent could not be decided, hence lease could not be formally renewed. The previous landlord through notice dated 24.12.2001 expressed the intention of renewing the lease if the rent was enhanced to Rs.12000/- per month. Previous landlord sent a reminder to the tenant on 28.1.2002 also. Thereafter, previous landlord sent a notice on 14.3.2002 demanding rent @ of Rs.12000/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.2002. The tenant intimated that decision at its head office was being awaited. Thereafter, also some correspondence ensued. Previous landlord sent a reminder to the tenant on 28.1.2002 also. Thereafter, previous landlord sent a notice on 14.3.2002 demanding rent @ of Rs.12000/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.2002. The tenant intimated that decision at its head office was being awaited. Thereafter, also some correspondence ensued. The plaintiff after one year of purchasing the property in dispute gave a notice on 24.4.2004 to the tenant intimating that if the oral offer of payment of rent of Rs.5000/- per month made by the tenant was given in writing by it then plaintiff would accept that and in case the tenant did not agree to payment of Rs.5000/- per month rent w.e.f. 16.4.2003 then it was not entitled to remain in possession. Notice remained unreplied. The tenant in its written statement accepted the tenancy through lease deed dated 2.4.1988. It was further pleaded that according to the lease deed rent was Rs.750/- per month for 5 years from 1.1.1987 and it was to be enhanced by 20% after every 5 years. Lease deed was for 15 years and it was to be renewed thereafter on freshly agreed rent and that in accordance with the said lease deed rent was being paid @ Rs.1080 per month from 1.1.1997 and that on 5.5.2001 tenant intimated the landlord about its readiness for renewal, however, until the lease was renewed old lease continued but the said letter was not replied. It was further pleaded that it was intimated by the tenant to the previous landlord through letter dated 09.04.2004 that tenant was ready to renewal of lease for 10 years w.e.f. 01.01.2004 at the rent of Rs.5000/- per month, however, no fresh lease deed was executed. Receipt of notices intimating the purchase by the plaintiff were denied and it was stated that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the defendant and the plaintiff. In the plaint rent from 16.4.2003 till 23.9.2004 @ of Rs.5000/- per month total Rs.81250/- was demanded. Previous owner Sanjiv Kumar Gupta as plaintiff's witness had admitted the sale deed. Eight issues were framed, however, as no plea of bar of jurisdiction had been taken in the written statement, hence no issue regarding that was framed. Regarding rate of rent and damages for use and occupation trial court held that as plaintiff had given notice dated 24.4.2004 that either shop should be vacated or rent @ Rs. Eight issues were framed, however, as no plea of bar of jurisdiction had been taken in the written statement, hence no issue regarding that was framed. Regarding rate of rent and damages for use and occupation trial court held that as plaintiff had given notice dated 24.4.2004 that either shop should be vacated or rent @ Rs. 5000/- per month should be paid, hence plaintiff was entitled to rent/damages for use and occupation @ Rs.5000/- per month. Civil Judge, Senior Division Jhansi therefore through judgment and decree dated 11.3.2008 decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of Rs.81250/- as rent/damages for use and occupation and for pendente lite and future damages @ Rs.5000/- per month. Against the said decree, tenant filed Civil appeal no.43 of 2008. A.D.J. Court no.3 Jhansi allowed the appeal through judgment and decree dated 18.11.2008 only on the ground that Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. The learned A.D.J. granted liberty to the landlord to file suit for eviction before appropriate Court i.e. J.S.C.C. Lower appellate court framed only two points. One was as to whether defendant was in possession over the property in dispute on behalf of the plaintiff and the other was as to whether judgment of the trial court was liable to be set aside on the ground mentioned in memorandum of appeal. First point was decided in favour of the land lord and it was held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant. The lower appellate court held that decree for eviction was wrongly passed as the said relief had not been claimed. The lower appellate court further held under point no.2 that in view of Section 15 of J.S.C.C. Act as added by U.P. suit for recovery of rent/damages for use and occupation after termination of tenancy was maintainable before J.S.C.C. and not before regular civil Court. As far as the decision of the lower appellate court regarding relief of dispossession is concerned, I do not find any error therein. Copy of the plaint is annexure1 to the affidavit, filed in support of stay application in this appeal. In the plaint no relief for eviction was prayed, only damages were claimed till shop was vacated. Such prayer can not be interpreted to be a prayer for possession. Copy of the plaint is annexure1 to the affidavit, filed in support of stay application in this appeal. In the plaint no relief for eviction was prayed, only damages were claimed till shop was vacated. Such prayer can not be interpreted to be a prayer for possession. Even in paragraph 18 of the plaint valuation of the suit was fixed at Rs.81250/-, the arrears for which suit was filed. Accordingly intention of the landlord was quite clear; he was not seeking relief of eviction. However, as far as question of jurisdiction is concerned I find that the view of the lower appellate court is patently erroneous in law. Under Section 23 of Provincial Causes Courts Act it is provided that if in a suit for eviction and of recovery of arrears of rent pending before J.S.C.C. a question of title is raised and appears to be involved to the J.S.C.C. then the J.S.C.C. should transfer the plaint to be filed before regular civil court. Accordingly, if landlord anticipates such type of objection by the defendant then he may very well file the suit before the regular Court straight away. In such a situation it would be an absurdity to first ask the landlord to file the suit before J.S.C.C., wait for the objection of the tenant regarding title and then take back the plaint and file the same before the regular court. In the instant case tenant defendant did question the title of the land lord plaintiff. In this regard reference may also be made to two full Bench authorities of this Court, first Reported in Manzurul Haq Vs. Hakim Mohsin Ali A.I.R. 1970 Allahabad 604 and the other in Bisheswar Prasad Gupta Vs. Dr. R.K. Agarwal A.I.R. 1977 Alld. 103 holding that J.S.C.C. is Court of Preferential jurisdiction and not of exclusive jurisdiction. Accordingly, it can not be said that a suit which is triable by J.S.C.C. can under no circumstances be decided by the regular civil court and the decision of regular civil Court in such suits is a nullity. Moreover in the full bench decision of Bisheswar Prasad (supra) and in Lala Hari Shyam Vs. Mangal Prasad A.I.R. 1983 Ald 275 it has been held that if question of jurisdiction in such matters (J.S.C.C. or regular Civil Court) is not raised before the trial court, it can not be permitted to be raised before the appellate court. Moreover in the full bench decision of Bisheswar Prasad (supra) and in Lala Hari Shyam Vs. Mangal Prasad A.I.R. 1983 Ald 275 it has been held that if question of jurisdiction in such matters (J.S.C.C. or regular Civil Court) is not raised before the trial court, it can not be permitted to be raised before the appellate court. In the instant case before the trial court no such objection was raised. Accordingly, both the substantial questions of law are decided in favour of appellant. Second appeal is allowed judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court is set aside. However, judgment and decree passed by the trial court for eviction is also set aside. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court for recovery of rent/damages for use and occupation is affirmed.