Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3053 (ALL)

Kwality Restaurant (M/s) v. Sunil Khetrapal

2016-09-06

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. -- Heard Sri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abu Bakht, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Both the above petitions are in relation to SCC Suit No. 14 of 1998 (Sunil Khetrapal and another Vs. Ajai Swarup Mehrotra and others) for arrears of rent and eviction. 3. The aforesaid suit has a valuation of Rs. 26,000/- and is pending before the District Judge/Additional District Judge who is exercising powers of the Small Causes Court in respect of such suits having valuation of over Rs. 25,000/-. 4. In one of the writ petitions the tenant is aggrieved by the order of the District Judge 27.7.2016 refusing to transfer the suit to the court of Small Causes presided over by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) despite amendment to Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes court Act, 1887 as applicable to U.P., by the Civil Laws Amendment Act, 2015 giving power to deal with suits between the lessor and lessee on determination of tenancy upto valuation of Rs. 1 lakh to the Small Causes Court of Civil Judge. 5. The other petition is by the owner and landlord of the suit premises for a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit within time bound period. 6. The facts of the case giving rise to these petitions reveal that the respondents as owners and landlords instituted a suit for arrears of rent and eviction against the petitioner from the premises in dispute in the year 1998. The suit was valued at Rs. 26,000/- and was decided by the Additional District Judge exercising powers of the Small Causes Court. Against the decision of the Additional District Judge deciding the suit, a revision was preferred in the High Court and the matter was remanded vide judgment and order dated 22.5.2015 to the court below for decision in accordance with law expeditiously. In pursuance thereof the matter was sent back to the Additional District Judge. 7. In the meantime the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court was increased upto Rs. 1,00,000/- vide Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 7th December 2015 in respect of suits between the lessor and lessee after determination of lease. 8. Accordingly, the petitioners moved application that the matter be transferred to the Small Causes Court from that of the Additional District Judge. 1,00,000/- vide Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 7th December 2015 in respect of suits between the lessor and lessee after determination of lease. 8. Accordingly, the petitioners moved application that the matter be transferred to the Small Causes Court from that of the Additional District Judge. However by the impugned order dated 27.7.2016 the District Judge opined that no doubt the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court has been increased upto Rs. 1,00,000/- in matters relating to lessor and lessee but in view of the fact that this matter is before the ADJ pursuant to the order of remand passed by the High Court, it would be appropriate that the District Judge/ADJ should decide the matter as a Small Causes Court. 9. The order of remand dated 22.5.2015 only set asides the previous decision dated 18.7.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge as a Small Causes court with the direction that the court below will re-decide the matter. The High Court in remanding the matter has not directed that the suit has to be decided by the DJ/ADJ and not by the court of Small Causes having jurisdiction. 10. It is tirite to mention that the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court is to try suits between the lesser and lessee upto the valuation of Rs. 1 lac and all suits of higher valuation are triable by DJ/ADJ as Small Causes Court. 11. In view of the above, according to present jurisdiction as the suit has to be considered and decided by the Small Causes Court on account of its valuation of Rs. 26,000/- which is less than Rs. 1 lakh, it is just and proper that the matter be decided by the regular Small Causes court rather than by the District Judge or the Additional District Judge. 12. The position in this regard has been clarified by me vide my judgment and order dated 29.8.2016 passed in SCC Revision No. 278 of 2016 and it has been held that all suits of rent and eviction falling under Section 15 (2) of the Act upto the valuation of Rs. 1 lakh are now triable by the Small Causes Court presided over by the senior most Civil Judge, Senior Division in the district and all other suits of higher valuation will go before the District Judge/Additional District Judge. 13. 1 lakh are now triable by the Small Causes Court presided over by the senior most Civil Judge, Senior Division in the district and all other suits of higher valuation will go before the District Judge/Additional District Judge. 13. Accordingly, impugned order dated 27.7.2016 is set aside and the application paper no. 4C/5C of the petitioner is allowed with the direction to the Small Causes court to decide SCC Suit No. 14 of 1998 in accordance with law most expeditiously by fixing short and quick dates and avoiding unnecessary adjournments. In case any adjournment become necessary, it shall not be allowed otherwise than by imposing cost of Rs. 1,000/- per adjournment. The suit shall be decided, if possible, within a period of three months or within this calendar year. The Additional District Judge before whom the above suit is pending shall remit the papers to the regular Small Causes court within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. 14. The petition no. 6580 of 2016 is allowed and petition no. 6397 of 2016 is disposed of.