JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard Sri Madhav Jain learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Yash Tandon learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of the present petition, the orders dated 3.9.2015, 24.2.2016 & 9.3.2016 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Buddh Nagar in S.C.C. Suit No.15 of 2013 (Sanjeev Kandhari & Ors. v. M/s FAIR GROWTH Exports Private Limited) are under challenge. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Suit No.15 of 2013 has been filed with the specific contention that the petitioner/defendant therein was a licensee of the suit property. The attention of the Court is invited to the plaint of the said suit filed on 1.7.2013. The plaintiff has specifically stated therein that the defendant/petitioner was inducted in the suit property as a licensee vide licence deed dated 25.5.2010 which was valid till 31.3.2019. Under the said deed, the defendant was required to pay the license fee regularly month by month on or before 10th of each month. The license fee was not paid strictly in the terms and conditions of license deed and, therefore, notice was served upon the defendant intimating revocation of license. The relief sought in the suit is for eviction of the licensee from the suit property and for recovery of license fee. 4. It appears that an objection was raised by the defendant by moving an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C on 3.2.2014. This application was kept pending and in the meantime amendment application dated 15.12.2015 was filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of plaint including relief. The contention therein is that the deed dated 25.5.2010 whereby the defendant was inducted in the suit property is actually a lease deed and has wrongly been termed as license deed in the plaint, relief was sought for eviction of lessee after determination of lease. Both the applications have been kept pending and in the mean time, an application under Order 15, Rule 5 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiff with the prayer to strike off the defence of the defendant. By order dated 24.2.2016, the Court below has observed that the application Paper No.54Ka for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. will be heard together with other applications. 5. By order dated 24.2.2016, the Court below has observed that the application Paper No.54Ka for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. will be heard together with other applications. 5. The submission is that till date S.C.C. Court has not passed any order on the application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule11 C.P.C moved by the defendant. The specific ground is that J.S.C.C. Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction of a licensee in view of the specific bar created under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act regarding the jurisdiction of the Courts of Small Causes. The Court of Small Cause is barred from taking cognizance of the suit specified in the II Schedule appended to the Act. 6. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent on the other hand submits that the term "license deed" and "license fee" has mistakenly been used in the plaint and for amendment thereof an application under Order 6, Rule 17 has already been filed. 7. Before dealing with the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to go through the relevant provisions. 8. Section 15 and the relevant Clause (4) of the II Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 is as follows: - "15. Cognizance of suits by Courts of Small Causes.- (1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the second schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. (2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five thousand rupees shall be cognisable by a Court of Small Causes. (2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five thousand rupees shall be cognisable by a Court of Small Causes. (3) Subject as aforesaid the High Court], may by order in writing, direct that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed [five thousand rupees] shall be cognisable by a Court of Small Causes mentioned in the Order." SECOND SCHEDULE (See Section 15) SUITS EXCEPTED FROM THE COGNIZANCE OF A COURT OF SMALL CAUSES "(4) 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." Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 is as under: - "23. Return of plaints in suits involving questions of title.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing portion of this Act, when the right of a plaintiff and the relief claimed by him in a Court of Small Causes depend upon the proof or disproof of a title to immovable property or other title which such a Court cannot finally determine, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings return the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. (2) When a Court returns a plaint under sub-section (1), it shall comply with the provisions of the second paragraph of section 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure (14 of 1882), and make such order with respect to costs as it deems just and the Court shall, for the purposes of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877) be deemed to have been unable to entertain the suit by reason of a cause of a nature like to that of defect of jurisdiction." 9. Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C is as follow: - "11. Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C is as follow: - "11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: - (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails comply with the provision of Rule 9." Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp papers shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, as the case may be within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff." 10. After going through these provisions, this Court finds that in the instant case, the dispute raised by the defendant is with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes to entertain the eviction suit on the pleadings made in the plaint. For want of jurisdiction of the Court, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 . The grounds of rejection of plaint has been narrated therein and none of the ground is available to the plaintiff on the plea raised by him. 11. However it goes without saying that before taking cognizance of a suit the Court of Small Causes for any other Court for that matter is required to satisfy itself regarding its jurisdiction even without there being an objection of the defendant in this regard. 11. However it goes without saying that before taking cognizance of a suit the Court of Small Causes for any other Court for that matter is required to satisfy itself regarding its jurisdiction even without there being an objection of the defendant in this regard. The defendant who is petitioner herein, however, has specifically raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes to entertain the suit for eviction for the plea taken in the plaint and the relief sought therein. It is obligatory upon the Court of Small Causes to examine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. 12. In any case, without deciding the question of jurisdiction it was not proper for the Court of Small Causes to proceed to decide the amendment application or the application under Order 15, Rule 5 filed by the plaintiff. The jurisdiction to try a suit cannot be conferred by the Court upon itself by allowing amendment of the pleadings or relief in the plaint. 13. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the J.S.C.C Court namely the Additional District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar has committed a serious error of law in entertaining the suit without examining the issue of jurisdiction and in proceedings to decide the amendment application and the application filed under Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C. 14. It was incumbent upon J.S.C.C Court to examine this question to satisfy itself regarding its jurisdiction before proceeding in the suit. 15. It is, therefore, directed that the Court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Gautam Budh Nagar shall examine its jurisdiction in S.C.C Suit No.15 of 2013 and only after passing a reasoned and speaking order on the merits of the objections raised by the defendant regarding jurisdiction it can proceed to decide the matter. 16. The Court below shall decide this issue on the next date fixed or within a further period of two weeks thereafter by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 17. With the above observations and directions, this petition is disposed of. 18. It goes without saying that the J.S.C.C. Court shall decide the issue of jurisdiction independently without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above. Order accordingly.