Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4103 (ALL)

Rajesh Kumar Logwani v. Ram Devi Ahuja

2016-12-19

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard Shri Chandra Bhan Gupta, counsel for the revisionist and Shri Prakhar Tandon for the opposite party. 2. This SCC Revision has been filed by the tenant challenging the order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court / Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Suit No.147 of 2015. 3. The instant revision arises out of SCC Suit filed by the opposite party for arrears of rent, eviction and damages. The dispute pertains to House No.119/373-H (711), Darshan Purwa, Kanpur Nagar. This suit has been decreed by the order impugned dated 14.09.2016. 4. The order aforesaid has been assailed by the counsel for the revisionist on the ground that the suit has been decided by the Judge Small Causes Court / Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Kanpur Nagar. 5. It is submitted that with effect from 07.12.2015 after Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act was amended by the U.P. Civil Laws ( Amendment Act), 2015, the suit could have been tried only by a Civil Judge ( Senior Division) functioning as a Small Causes Court as the valuation of the suit was Rs.40,352.47 paise. 6. Since, post amendment, this suit was triable by the Civil Judge ( Senior Division), an application for transfer of the case to the Court having jurisdiction was filed but no orders were passed on this application. 7. The other submission of counsel for the revisionist is that admittedly, the provisions of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 were applicable to the accommodation in question. This was categorically admitted by the opposite party, landlord. Therefore, the tenancy of the revisionist could not have been terminated by a notice, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the suit filed after allegedly terminating the tenancy of the revisionist by means of such a notice was clearly not maintainable. 8. Shri Prakhar Tandon appearing for the opposite party has supported the impugned order. On the question of preliminary jurisdiction, he has submitted that the suit had been instituted before the amendment was made in Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. Relying upon Sub-section 2 of Section 32 of the said Act, he has submitted that the Court which has decided the matter had jurisdiction to decide it. On the question of preliminary jurisdiction, he has submitted that the suit had been instituted before the amendment was made in Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. Relying upon Sub-section 2 of Section 32 of the said Act, he has submitted that the Court which has decided the matter had jurisdiction to decide it. He has further submitted that the amendment relied upon by the revisionist was not applicable with retrospective effect and it has been held by the Apex Court, in Arjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1970 AIR (SC) 703 that no provision in a statute should be given retrospective effect unless, it has been made applicable retrospectively by express terms or by necessary implications. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the order. 10. The controversy as to the jurisdiction of the Judge Small Causes Court has been decided by this Court, vide judgment dated 29.08.2016, passed in SCC Revision No.278 of 2016, Shobhit NigamVs. Smt. Batulan and another. It has been held that consequent to the amendment, an SCC Suit having a valuation between Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1 Lac, shall lie before the Small Causes Court presided over by the Civil Judge ( Senior Division). Suits having a valuation of more than Rs.1 Lac would lie before the Additional District Judge / District Judge constituting a Small Causes Court. 11. In view of the said judgment, the SCC suit whose valuation was Rs.40,352.47/- was triable by a Small Causes Court / Civil Judge ( Senior Division) and post amendment, the Small Causes Court presided over by an Additional District Judge or District Judge had ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter. The impugned order, therefore, is liable to be set aside on this short ground alone. 12. The issue as to whether or not, the amendment in Section 15 of the Act with effect from 07.12.2015 is retrospective or not, has also being dealt with, in the case of Shobhit Nigam ( supra) and it has been categorically held that after the amendment, all the suits having a valuation up to Rs. 1 Lac are to be dealt with by the Small Causes Court or the Civil Judge ( Senior Division), irrespective of their institution. 13. 1 Lac are to be dealt with by the Small Causes Court or the Civil Judge ( Senior Division), irrespective of their institution. 13. Besides, in my considered opinion, the submission of the counsel for the opposite party and his reliance upon sub-section 2 of Section 32 of the Act is miss placed, especially in view of the Section 35 of the Act, which is extracted below - "35. Continuance of proceedings of abolished Courts - (1) Where a Court of Small Causes, or a Court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes, has from any cause ceased to jurisdiction with respect to any case, any proceeding in relation to the case, whether before or after decree, which, if the Court had not ceased to have jurisdiction, might have been therein, may be had in the Court which, if the suit out of which the proceeding has arisen were about to be instituted, would have jurisdiction to try the suit." 14. In view of the above discussion, the order impugned dated 14.09.2016 is found to be without jurisdiction and is therefore set aside. The matter is remanded back for a fresh decision to the Judge Small Causes Court / Civil Judge ( Senior Division), who is competent to deal with the same. 15. It is clarified that the other submissions, raised at the bar, have not been considered and may be considered by the Court upon remand. 16. Subject to the above, this revision is allowed and the matter is remanded.