Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2625 (ALL)

Viresh Singh v. Mahesh Chandar Gupta

2013-10-23

SANJAY MISRA

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri Vipin Kumar Saxena learned counsel for the defendant revisionist and Sri Rama Nand Gupta for the sole plaintiff respondent. 2. This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act filed against judgment and order dated 24.9.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1 in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2011 whereby the objection under Section 47 CPC filed by the revisionist judgment debtor has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the objection has been illegally rejected for the reason that the Court of Small Causes does not have jurisdiction to award arrears of rent prior to the date on which the tenancy has been determined and therefore the executing Court ought to have considered the fact that the decree of the Small Causes Court Act dated 29.9.2007 passed in SCC Suit No. 4 of 1999 could not have been executed to that extent. According to learned counsel the decree that was passed by the Judge Small Causes Court was for recovery of Rs. 72,000/- as well as for eviction and @ Rs. 2000/- per month for future damages for use and occupation of the shop in question. According to him the objection of the petitioner under Section 47 CPC relating to recovery of the arrears prior to the determination of tenancy has been illegally rejected. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Goverdhan Goyal and others v. Rishi Raj Singhal, 2013 (3) ALJ 394 and also in the case of Ram Autar Yadav v. Daya Nand Swarup Pandey, 2011 (8) ADJ 56 (NOC). 4. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist at the first instance it would be appropriate to notice that according to the impugned order the tenancy was terminated by notice dated 17.6.1996 claiming arrear w.e.f. July 1995 but the tenant made some deposit under Section 30 of the Act in Case No. 29 of 1996 hence when rent was not paid since August 1995 the notice dated 12.4.1999 was given to quit and the claim of arrears of rent for three years was made by the plaintiff respondent. 5. 5. A perusal of the plaint which has been filed as annexure alongwith this revision indicates that relief No. 2 was with respect to the arrears of rent of the past three years only. As such in these circumstances the decision of this Court cited requires to be considered. 6. In the case of Goverdhan Goyal (supra) the matter related to a plot of land which was let out on annual rent under registered deed of lease with permission to raise permanent structure over it. The Court found that the suit filed by the lessor for eviction of such lessee is cognisable by Civil Court unless jurisdiction of Civil Court is expressly or impliedly barred by any statute. It was held that Small Causes Court is empowered to take cognisance of all suits of civil nature up to certain valuation which are not excluded from its jurisdiction as specified in IInd Schedule of Provincial Small Causes Court Act. The Court in this decision was considering the provisions of IInd Schedule Article 4 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Schedule IInd of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act deals with suits excepted from the cognisance of a Court of Small Causes. Article 4 thereof as applicable in the State of U.P. is quoted here under : “a suit for the possession of immovable property or for the recovery of an interest in such property, but not including a suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease, and for the recovery from him of compensation for the use and occupation of that building after such determination of lease.” 7. From a perusal of the said article it is quite clear that a suit for possession of immovable property or recovery of an interest in such property is excepted from cognisance of a Court of Small Causes. 8. The article clearly provides that the exception would not be to a suit by a lessor for the eviction of lessee from a building after determination of his lease and for recovery from him of compensation for the use and occupation of that building after such determination of lease. 8. The article clearly provides that the exception would not be to a suit by a lessor for the eviction of lessee from a building after determination of his lease and for recovery from him of compensation for the use and occupation of that building after such determination of lease. Clearly the suit filed by a lessor for eviction of a lessee and for recovery of compensation for use and occupation of that building after determination of lease is maintainable before the Court of Small Cause. 9. From a reading of the aforesaid schedule and Article 4 it cannot be accepted that the arrears of three years claimed by the landlord is in any manner barred before the Court of Small Cause. Therefore the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist on that score is misconceived and cannot be accepted. 10. Insofar as the judgment in the case of Ram Autar Yadav (supra) is concerned no doubt the Court was addressing the submission of the parties on the provisions of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act relating to Section 15 and IInd Schedule Article 4 but after noticing such provisions the Court found that the case in hand was not a case between lessor and lessee but it was a case relating to licence and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties therefore to say that an adjudication on the said issue between lessor and lessee and the effect of Section 15 Article 4 IInd Schedule of the Act was done in the said case would be incorrect. No benefit can be taken by the revisionist from the aforesaid judgment. 11. Moreover the plaintiff claimed rent @ Rs. 2000/- per month and in relief No. 2 he claimed rent for three years i.e. Rs. 72,000/-. Clearly the claim for arrears was within limitation which is three years. 12. No other submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist. There is no merit in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed. 13. No order is passed as to costs.