Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J. List revised. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned orders dated 8.1.1999 and 3.5.2001 passed by respondent nos.3 and 2 respectively, anneuxres 5 and 6 to the writ petition. 4. There is no interim order. The brief facts of the present case are that the disputes relates to shop no.140 and portion of the first floor of shop no.136 to 139, Jawahar Chowk Jhansi. The father of the petitioner was tenant of Atari at the rate of 10/- per month since 1.9.1962. The stairs door was numbered as shop no.140 by the Municipal Board, Jhansi. Case of the petitioner is that the Atari can not be utilised for business unless the open space of the stairs is not given on rent and as such the father of the petitioner took the Atari on rent and started sitting in front of the stairs for doing his business of watch reparting.? The Municipal Board, Jhansi had demolished two three steps of stairs in encroachment drive. The petitioners started doing the business of watch repairs sitting on stool. Subsequently, rent was increased to the tune of Rs.20/- per month. The father of the respondent no.1 filed a J.S.C.C. Suit No.128 of 1992, Ravi Shanker Agrawal Vs. Mohd. Hasim and another, for arrears of rent and ejectment which was dismissed on 2.9.1994. The respondent no.1 filed a suit No.238 of 1997, Ravi Shanker Agrawal Vs. Mohd. Hasim in the court of respondent no.3 for possession of the shop in dispute and for arrears of rent. The plaint allegation was that the tenant has taken illegal possession of the terrace over the shop no.136 to 139, Jawahar Chowk, Jhansi hence they are also liable for eviction from the Shop No.140, Jawahar Chowk, Jhansi occupied as tenants. The petitioners contested the suit and denied the plaint allegations inter-alia on ground that they are occupying the shop in dispute as tenants to which the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 applied and the regular civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit and as such the suit was not maintainable. The petitioners contested the suit and denied the plaint allegations inter-alia on ground that they are occupying the shop in dispute as tenants to which the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 applied and the regular civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit and as such the suit was not maintainable. The trial court decided the preliminary issues in affirmative holdings that the civil court has the jurisdiction to decide the suit by the judgment and order dated 8.1.1999 against which revision was preferred, however, revision was also dismissed upholding the judgment of the trial court vide judgment and order dated 3.5.2001 hence the present writ petition was filed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the case of the petitioners is that since the matter was covered under the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and the dispute is in between landlord and tenant, the civil suit was not maintainable and the case was cognizable only by the Judge, Small Causes Court. He further submitted that part of the cause of action was cognizable by the civil court and part of cause of action was cognizable by small cause court as such the civil court has jurisdiction. 6. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. Only Shop No.140, Jawahar Chowk, was let out and there was unauthorised possession over the terace of Shop No.136 to 139 regarding which the suit was for dispossession and the civil court has jurisdiction. The court below has considered judgment of this Court reported in 1999(2) Allahabad Rent Cases, page 853 Abdul Hamid Vs. IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Mainpur and others and AIR 1983 Allahabad page 275 Lala Hari Shyam Vs. Mangal Prasad. According to Division Bench, the courts of small causes are courts of preferential and not exclusive jurisdiction. The necessary corollary is that the regular civil courts do not totally lose jurisdiction. They are the courts of plenary jurisdiction under Section 9 C.P.C. The civil court has authority to entertain and try all suits of civil nature. In Abdul Hamid's case (supra) it was held that section 15(1) of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act confers jurisdiction upon small causes courts to try a suit for possession based on contract of tenancy of a building. In Abdul Hamid's case (supra) it was held that section 15(1) of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act confers jurisdiction upon small causes courts to try a suit for possession based on contract of tenancy of a building. In the present case the Shop No.136 to 139 was not let out and civil court has jurisdiction with regard to the part of cause of action hence there is no illegality in the order passed by the courts below. 7. Accordingly, present writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim order, if any, is hereby discharged. Since it is old matter hence the civil court is expected to conclude the proceeding and decide the same as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. ______________