This change was sought to be brought about by amending Article 4 of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act so that 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 companypensation for the use and occupation of the buildings after such determination of lease was numberlonger excepted from the companynizance of the companyrt of small causes.
The State Government issued another numberification on the same day i.e. Sep. 22, 1972 dated September 22, 1972, published in Uttar Pradesh Gazette, Part I, dated October 7, 1972 page No.
The landlord aggrieved by said judgment has companye up in this appeal.
1 of 2010.
Some other grounds were also taken for challenging the judgment dated 22.10.2016.
The issue which has arisen in these appeals pertains to the jurisdiction of Court of Additional District Judge in deciding Small Causes Suit on Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA Date 2018.10.12 152420 IST 22.10.2016.
1 8 69Nyaya KaII , dated September 23, 1969, the Governor is pleased to direct, that subject to the exceptions specified in the Second Schedule to the first mentioned Act, and to the Provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suite referred to in the proviso to the said subsection of which the value does number exceed five thousand rupees, shall, with effect from the date of publication of this numberification, be companynizable by the Courts of Judge.
By order dated 05.04.2010 passed by District Judge, the suit was transferred to the Court of District Judge, Firozabad and was registered as S.C.C. Suit No.
Notification No.
4111 8 VIIA580/72, dated September 22, 1972, published in Uttar Pradesh Gazette, dated 30972, Part I Page 5252 , issued by the State Government lays down as under In exercise of the powers companyferred by Subsection 3 of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 Act IX of 1887 as amended by the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 U.P. Act No.
One of the grounds taken before the High Court was that in view of the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 2015, the Court of Additional District Judge ceased to have jurisdiction to try suit between lessor and lessee of value upto Rs.1 Lac w.e.f.
Reason The facts necessary to be numbericed for deciding these appeals are The appellant, the landlord of premises in question filed Judge Small Causes Suit No.
One of the grounds taken in the revision was that after enactment of Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act, 2015, the Court of Additional District Judge ceased to have any jurisdiction to try the suit between lessor and lessee of a value upto Rs.
07.12.2005 vide Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act, 2015.
1 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division , Small Cause Court, Firozabad praying for decree of eviction, rent and damages.
11 and 12, following was stated The amendments which were effected by the P. Civil Laws Amendment Act of 1972 were motivated by a companysideration that the suits for eviction filed by the lessors against the lessees of buildings took an unduly long time to be finally decided and, therefore, it was thought advisable that such suits should be tried as suits of the nature of small causes suits so that they companyld be disposed of expeditiously and there companyld be numberappeal against the decision of the trial Court.
None of the parties raised any objection with regard to hearing of suit by Additional District Judge, companysequently, the Additional District Judge heard the parties and by judgment dated 22.10.2016 decreed the suit for eviction and due rent companypensation.
The assumption subsequent thereto of the jurisdiction by the Additional District Judge is without jurisdiction.
07.12.2015, the suit in question namely Small Causes Suit No.1 of 2010 which was pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Firozabad companytinued to proceed in the companyrt of Additional District Judge.
The High Court vide its impugned judgment dated 07.12.2016 allowed the Small Cause Court revision taking a view that order passed by Additional District Judge was without jurisdiction in view of Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act, 2015 w.e.f.
The tenant aggrieved by the judgment of Additional District Judge filed a revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, before the High Court.
Aggrieved against the judgment of Addl.
District Judge, revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 was filed by the tenant respondents to this appeal .
1 lakh w.e.f.
The Additional District Judge to whom the suit was transferred earlier on the ground that pecuniary jurisdiction of the suit is more than Rs.25,000/ i.e. Rs.27,775/, proceeded to decide the suit vide its judgment and order dated 22.10.2016 and the suit for eviction, rent and companypensation was decreed.
The High Court remanded back the Revision for a fresh decision by Small Causes Court presided over by a Civil Judge Senior Division .
07.12.2015, after which date, such case of valuation of Rs.27,775/ companyld have been decided by Civil Judge Senior Division working as Judge Small Causes Court.
Small Causes, Bareilly, Moradabad, Meerut, Gorakhpur, Aligarh, Kanpur, Allahabad, Varanasi, Agra, Lucknow, and the Court of additional Judge, Small Causes, Lucknow.
1 lakh.
37 of 1972 and in companytinuation of Government Notification No.
The High Court also numbericed the object and purpose of Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 and High Court held that Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to take companynizance of cases of valuation of more than five thousand rupees.
The pecuniary jurisdiction of a Judge, Small Cause Court, which at the time of filing of the suit was Rs.25,000/ was raised from Rs.25,000/ to Rs.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These appeals have been filed by the appellant landlord , questioning the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Small Causes Court Revision filed by the respondents tenant challenging the decree of eviction passed by Additional District Judge, Firozabad.
In Paragraph Nos.
