JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya, J. Heard Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the applicants-revisionists and Sri J.J.Munir, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This revision has been filed by the tenant against the order of the court below by which his application for dismissing the suit on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Smt. Urmila Rani Gaur and others, reported in 1983(2)ARC304 wherein this Court has held that mense profits cannot be claimed higher than the rent. In the present case admitted rent is Rs. 1000/- and the mense profits has been determined at Rs.2500/- only. As such, the Small Cause Court does not have jurisdiction. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision is allowed and the order of the trial court while deciding issue no.6 is set-aside. As such, it is directed that the plaint be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be presented before the appropriate court. It is further provided that in case such a suit is filed before the appropriate forum, the same be considered and decided without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.