V.K Shukla, J.:— Present rent revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.12.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 10.Judge Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar, whereby Small Cause Case No. 21 of 2006 (Sunil Tuli v. Mohd. Haneef) seeking eviction and arrears of rent filed by landlord, has been decreed against the revisionist and further direction to hand over the peaceful possession of shop in House No. 25/16, situated in Karanchikarkhana, Sagar Market, Kanpur Nagar on the ground floor, to the landlord.
2. Brief background of the case is that the revisionist is tenant of the aforesaid shop. The premises in question was purchased by Sunil Tuli from its erstwhile owner Amar Nath Gupta vide sale deed dated 15.6.2005 The case of the revisionist has been that after the said purchase had materialized, Sunil Tuli started making all sorts of obstructions in the peaceful possession, and in this background Original Suit No. 1120 of 2005 had been filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding, notice was sent mentioning therein that rent was due with effect from 15.6.2005 to February, 2006, and the rate of rent was described at Rs. 5000/- per month. After the said notice had been received, revisionist gave reply to the said notice dated 20.2.2006 on 23.2.2006 Thereafter, another notice was given on 12.3.2006, and as demand made was not complied with, the landlord filed suit as aforesaid, claiming damages for a sum of Rs. 1,25,950/-. In the said proceeding so undertaken, revisionist filed written statement contending therein that entire amount had been deposited, and there were no arrears of rent. In the said J.S.C.C suit after exchange of pleadings and after evidence was led, Judge Small Cause Court proceeded to decree the suit. At this juncture, present revision has been filed.
3. Amendment application has also been filed, the amendment prayed for has been allowed, and the grounds mentioned therein are treated as part of the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision.
4. Sri W.H Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri J.H Khan, Advocate, contended with vehemence that—
(i) entire proceedings undertaken by Additional District Judge as Judge Small Cause Court is totally without jurisdiction, as valuation of suit was Rs. 1,25,950/-, and the Judge Small Cause Court under the U.P Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 (U.P Act No. 17 of 1991) was competent to try the suit up to the valuation of Rs. 25,000/- only, as no corresponding amendment has been made under Bengal, Agra Assam Act, 1887, and latter Act will prevail the same being Special Act vis-a-vis Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, which is general Act, as such entire proceedings are without jurisdiction and nullity;
(ii) the plaintiff has taken self contradictory stand and has not accepted the revisionist as tenant, then the suit was not at all maintainable before the Judge Small Cause Court and could not have been decreed, in the way and manner in which it has been done, and in this background also proceedings are without jurisdiction.
5. Countering the said submission, Sri M.D Singh Shekhar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Srivsatava, Advocate, contended with vehemence that—
(i) the provisions of U.P Act No. 17 of 1991 merely raises pecuniary jurisdiction of Judge Small Cause Court from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 25,000/- in respect of the suits filed by lessor against lessee before Judge Small Causes, whereas pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge and Additional District Judges while working as Judge Small Cause Court irrespective of the valuation continues to remain intact, and is not at all affected by U.P Act No. 17 of 1991, as such argument advanced is unsustainable.
(ii) In the present case at no point of time issue of jurisdiction was ever raised before the Court below by revisionist, as such in view of section 21(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, such argument is not at all available and the Revisional Court cannot go into the question of jurisdiction.
(iii) Once revisionist has accepted his position as tenant, then he cannot resile from the said situation; and on admitted position, the J.S.C.C suit in question has been decreed, then there being no error in exercise of authority by Judge Small Cause Court, no interference is required.
6. After respective arguments have been advanced, the first question to be adverted to is, as to whether, in view of the provisions of U.P Act No. 17 of 1991, wherein pecuniary jurisdiction of Judge Small Cause Court has been raised from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- in respect of suit filed by lessor against the lessee, same ousts the jurisdiction of the District Judges and Additional District Judges ipso facto functioning as Judge Small Cause Court irrespective of the valuation.
7. In order to consider and appreciate the respective pleas which have been raised, relevant provisions are being looked into. The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act created Courts of Small Causes. Section 15 of that Act conferred jurisdiction on such Courts. By sub-section (2) of section 15 a pecuniary limit was laid down in respect of suits cognizable by the Courts of Small Causes. Initially it was Rs. 500/-. It was then subsequently raised to Rs. 1,000/- then to Rs. 2,000/-. Sub-section (3) of section 15 conferred power on the State Government to raise the pecuniary limit. By the Civil Laws (Amendment) Act No. 37 of 1972, a proviso was added to sub-section (3) by which the Courts of Small Causes were authorised to take cognizance of suits between landlords and tenants for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent and compensation. Article (4) of the II Schedule to the Act was also suitably amended to permit this. The operation of section 15(2) was expressly made subject to the provisions of enactments for the time being in force. It is thus clear that the pecuniary limit laid down by section 15(2) was made subject to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force. The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act conferred a special jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes created under it. It did not deal with the question whether jurisdiction of the Courts of Small Cause may be conferred on other Civil Courts. The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 was an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to Civil Courts. By chapter II, it constituted various classes of Civil Courts. Chapter III of this Act dealt with ordinary jurisdiction for Civil Courts. Chapter IV provided for special jurisdiction. Section 25 was important. It occurs in Chapter IV. It provides for power to invest Civil Judges and Munsifs to exercise powers of Small Cause Courts. By Civil Laws (Amendment) Act 37 of 1972, section 25 of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 was amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, conferring jurisdiction on District Judge and Additional District Judge, for trial of all Small Causes Suits irrespective of their valuation by the lessor for eviction of lessee after determination of lease.
8. By notification, published in U.P Gazette, Part I, dated 7.10.1972, in exercise of the powers under sub-section (3) of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (Act No. XII of 1887) as amended by the U.P Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U.P Act No. 37 of 1972) and in supersession of all earlier notification issued in this behalf, the Governor was pleased to delegate to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad the power of the State Government under the said section. Further by notification, published in U.P Gazette, dated 11.11.1972, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(2) of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (Act No. XII of 1887) as amended by the U.P Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U.P Act No. 37 of 1972) delegated by the State Government under sub-section (3) of the said section 25 to the High Court, the High Court has been pleased to confer upon all the District Judges and Additional District Judges, the jurisdiction of a Judge of Court of Small Cause under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, for the trial of all the suits (irrespective of their value) of the nature referred to in sub-section (2).
9. At the said point of time issue was sought to be raised that without appropriate amendment to section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the High Court could not confer such powers upon District Judges and Additional District Judges. This Court, in the case of M.P Mishra v. Sangam Lal . AIR 1975 Alld. 425., traced the amendment made under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, and proceeded to repeal the said argument by taking the view that section 15(2) of the Small Cause Courts Act has been made in explicit terms subject to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, and it is this sub-section which puts a limit on the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts of Small Causes. But as it is clearly stated that the provision is subject to the provisions of any other enactment, therefore, it is possible for the State Government acting and the provisions of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, to confer a higher pecuniary jurisdiction on the District Judge and the Additional District Judge.” Relevant extract of the said judgment is being quoted below:
“It was next contended that without an amendment of section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act mere amendment of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act could not serve the legislative intention. The purpose of section 15(3) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is different from the purpose underlying section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act. Section 15(3) enables the State Government to raise the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes. Normally, the State Government can raise such limit to try suits whose value does not exceed Rs. 2,000/-, but in the case of suits between the lessor and lessee of the aforesaid veracity such enactment can be up to the limit of Rs. 5,000/-. It should be clear that section 15(3) has a reference to the regular Court of Small Causes established in a District. Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act enables the State Government (and after delegation the High Court) to confer upon any Civil Judge or Munsif or upon District or Additional District Judge the jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Causes. Whereas in section 25(1) there are pecuniary limits in the case of Civil Judge and Munisfs in section 15(2) where are no such pecuniary limits in respect of the District Judges or the Additional District Judge. If under section 25, the State Government or the High Court is empowered to confer on special officers the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes, there is no reason to hold that such conferment must be restricted to the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes. Admittedly, in section 25 itself there is no such restriction about the pecuniary jurisdiction. Section 15(2) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has been made in explicit terms subject to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force. It is this sub-section which puts a limit on the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts of Small Causes. But as it is clearly stated that the provision is subject to the provisions of any other enactment, therefore, it is possible for the State Government acting under the provisions of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, to confer a higher pecuniary jurisdiction on the District Judge and the Additional District Judge.”
10. The said provision has again been subject matter of interpretation by this Court in the case of Smt. Cinia Devi v. Dayanath Gupta . AIR 1977 NOC 248., and therein view has been taken that sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Act as inserted by U.P Act No. 3 of 1972 makes an exception by providing that where District Judge or Additional District Judge functions as Judge Small Cause Court, there is no pecuniary limit to try such suits of small cause nature. The said provision was again subject matter of interpretation before Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Shah v. Smt. Kamla Devi . ARC 1983 page 337., and therein view has been taken that the Legislature is not prevented from introducing reforms gradually and further section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act deals with jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes, constituted and established by Small Cause Courts Act. It does not deal with conferment of jurisdiction on other classes of Civil Courts for example District Judges and Additional District Judges. The constitution and jurisdiction of other classes of Civil Courts is dealt with by the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act. Section 25 of the latter Act specifically deals with the conferment of jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Cause on the existing Civil Courts. section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act does not bar conferment of jurisdiction on the other Civil Courts. Further section 15(2) itself operates subject to any other enactment for the time being in force, including section 25 of the Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, and section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Civil Courts Act will not bar conferment of jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Cause Courts on other classes of Civil Courts, including District Judges and Additional District Judges. Paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the said judgment being relevant are quoted below:
“13. In the case, attention of learned Judge was not invited to sub-section (4) of section 25 which was introduced by the Amendment Act of 1973 with retrospective effect from September 20, 1972. The submission in the present case is based upon the enactment of sub-section (4) of section 25. The argument is that the enactment of sub-section (4) of section 25 shows that conferment of jurisdiction on District Judges and Additional District Judges was not permissible without the non-obstante clause enacted in sub-section (4). Without sub-section (4) of section 25, section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act bars any such conferment of unlimited jurisdiction on District Judges and Additional District Judges. The argument has no substance.
14. Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act deals with the jurisdiction of Courts of Small Causes constituted and established by Small Cause Courts Act. It does not deal with conferment of jurisdiction on other classes of Civil Courts e.g District Judges and Additional District Judges, the constitution and jurisdiction of other classes of Civil Courts is dealt with by the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act. Section 25 of the later Act specifically deals with the conferment of jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Cause on the existing Civil Courts. section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act does not bar conferment of jurisdiction on the other Civil Courts. Further section 15(2) itself operates subject to any other enactment for the time being in force, including section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, and section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Civil Courts Act will not bar conferment of jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Cause Courts on other classes of Civil Courts, including District Judges and Additional District Judges.
15. sub-section (4) of section 25 appears to have been enacted by way of abundant caution to remove any doubt in that respect. The amendment to sub-section (4) of section 25 cannot be construed to remove the so called bar imposed by section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The State Government and the High Court had power to confer jurisdiction of a Judge Small Causes on District Judges and Additional District Judges by virtue of sub-section (2) of section 25 read with sub-section (3) of section 25. The notification issued by High Court on October 25, 1972 was valid and had operative efficiency since the date it was issued.
16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to Adarsh Bhandar v. Sales Tax Officer, Aligarh . AIR 1957 All. 475 FB.. That case is distinguishable. In that case, a notification was issued before the provision which enabled the issuance of that notification had actually come into force. The notification was held a still born enactment. Here the enabling provision had come into force on September 20, 1972. It authorised the State Government or the High Court to confer jurisdiction by issuance of notification. The notification issued by the High Court on October 25, 1972 was hence issued at a time when the enabling provision had, in fact, come into force.
17. The next submission of the learned Counsel was that section 25(2) and section 25(4) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act violated Article 14 of the Constitution. By these provisions, the District Judge and Additional District Judge have been authorised to exercise the powers of a Judge of Small Cause in relation to suits between the landlord and tenants irrespective of their value. It was submitted that these provisions introduced vice of discrimination between a litigant who is a party in a suit between landlord and tenant on one hand and the litigant who is a party in other category of suits triable by Courts of Small Cause on the other. The latter category of litigants cannot have a suit tried as Small Cause Court suit if the value of the suit is above Rs. 3,000/- while the former kind of litigant can have a suit tried as Small Cause Court matter irrespective of its value. All suits cognizable by a Court of Small Cause have been placed within the jurisdiction of Judge Small Causes because they need quick disposal, there was, hence no jurisdiction in isolating suits between landlords and tenants only for being tried under the Small Causes Courts procedure irrespective of their value.”
11. Thereafter, once again this Court in the case of R.S Lal v. Devendra Bhushan Singhal . 1984 AWC 195., reiterated the same view. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said judgment are being quoted below:
“4. It is true that section 25(2) talks of conferment of the jurisdiction on the Judge of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act yet it cannot be over-looked that the Legislature has used clear words that suit by the lessor for ejectment of a lessee from a building, after determination of his lease or for recovery from him of arrears of rent for a period thereof, during the continuation of the lease or compensation for the use and occupation thereof after such determination of lease shall be triable by Courts of Small Cause irrespective of their valuation. In view of the unequivocable words in which the Legislature has expressed its intention in this sub-section, it would not be possible to accept the submission that by some rule of interpretation limited meaning should be given to them in the manner suggested by the learned Counsel. It is also noticeable that in sub-section (4) of section 25 it has clearly been provided that notwithstanding anything contained in section 15 of the Small Causes Courts Act, all suits referred to in sub-section (1) shall be cognizable by the Court of Small Causes where the jurisdiction of a Judge of Court of Small Causes is conferred on a District Judge or an Additional District Judge. This sub-section makes the intention of the Legislature absolutely clear, namely, that it wanted to confer upon the District Judge or Additional District Judge power to try suits of the nature mentioned in sub-section (2) without any limit of pecuniary jurisdiction provided for in section 15 of Small Causes Courts Act. It may be observed at this stage that section 15(2) of that Act itself contemplates that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed Rs. 2000/- shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes subject to the exceptions specified in the second schedule and “to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force.” This part of sub-section (2) of section 15 would clearly embrace within its scope the provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (4) of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act.
5. Another submission by the learned Counsel for the applicant has been that the provision enabling the trial by the District Judge and the Additional District Judge of the suits of the nature specified in sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, irrespective of their value, would render the provision discriminatory. The argument is that while suits for recovery of arrears of rent or of compensation for use and occupation for a sum in excess of Rs. 5,000/- will be triable by a Court of Small Cause another suit for recovery of an equivalent amount on any other count is triable by a regular Civil Court. Since the procedure contemplated for trial of suits by the Court of Small Cause is summary in character, a litigant, like a tenant in the instant case is likely to be prejudiced. Suffice it to say that all the tenants of the nature envisaged by sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act have been similarly treated and they form an intelligible class by themselves, different from litigant against whom a suit for recovery of an amount in excess of Rs. 5,000/- on any other ground may be filed. The suggestion that the classification has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by making the suit of this nature cognizable by a Court of Small Cause again is not sound for it is clear that where a lessor terminates the lessee and seeks recovery of an amount due to him either as rent or as compensation for use and occupation of the premises belonging to him, he was to be given relief expeditiously. Primarily with this object the suits of this nature were made triable by Judge Small Causes. May be the procedure for trial is not as elaborate as that in a regular suit and no right of appeal is available to an aggrieved tenant yet, like all other tenants in the premises whose tenancy has been terminated, tenant can seek re-examination of the decision against him in a revision under section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act.”
12. In the light of the judgments quoted above, it is being looked into as to whether any amendment made in section 15 by U.P Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1991, extending pecuniary jurisdiction from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-, without making any corresponding amendment in section 25 will have overriding effect. Section 15 as amended by U.P Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1991 is being quoted below:
“Chapter III
Amendment of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887
6. Amendment of section 15 of Act No. IX of 1887.— In section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, for sub-sections (2) and (3), the following sub-sections shall be substituted, namely,
“(2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that schedule and to the provisions of any other 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 cognizable by a Court of Small Causes:
Provided that in relation to suits by the lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease or for recovery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease, or of compensation for use and occupation thereof after the determination of the lease, the reference in this sub-section to five thousand rupees shall be construed as a reference to twenty five thousand rupees.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression “building” has the same meaning as in Article (4) in the second schedule.”
13. A perusal of the provisions quoted above would go to show that in section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, for sub-sections (2) and (3), the following sub-sections shall be substituted, which provides that subject to the exceptions specified in that schedule and to the provisions of any other 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 cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, and further the proviso to the same provides that in relation to suits by the lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease or for recovery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease, or of compensation for use and occupation thereof after the determination of the lease, the reference in this sub-section to five thousand rupees shall be construed as a reference to twenty five thousand rupees. This, enhancement of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- will not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the District Judge and Additional District Judge to act as Judge Small Cause Court on the parameter as set out in the judgment quoted and discussed above, inasmuch as section 15(2) even in its amended form under the U.P Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1991 is subject to the exceptions specified in that schedule and to the provision of any other enactment for the time being in force. The term “subject to” has been subject matter of interpretation on various occasions. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu . 2004 3 SCC 1., has held that “subject to” is an expression whereby limitation is expressed. The Apex Court has further noticed the dictionary meaning of “subject to” stating:—
“90. Furthermore, the expression ‘subject to’ must be given effect to.
91. In Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition at page 1278 the expression ‘subject to’ has been defined as under:
“Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to; governed or affected by; provided that; provided, answerable for Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation . 345 Mo. 650, 136 SC 2d 289, 302..”
14. The Apex Court has followed the aforesaid principle in a subsequent decision in the case of S.N Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka . 2006 3 SCC 208., wherein section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1963 provided that the changes of land use or development would be subject to the procedure laid down in section 14-A of the Act. Considering the impact of the words “subject to” used in section 14, the Apex Court held that they are of some significance and the said words must be given full effect to. The Apex Court also held that the meaning of the said words had been noticed in Ashok Leyland Ltd. (supra). The said provision is thus not absolute; rather it is subject to the provisions of any other enactment for the time being in force, as such subject to the provisions of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, and therein the District Judges and Additional District Judges, have been conferred the authority to function as Judge Small Cause Court. Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act in no way bars conferment of jurisdiction of Judge Small Cause Court, as the authority under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act is independent to the authority as provided under section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. In this background, section 15 even in its amended form will not bar conferment of jurisdiction of Judge Small Cause Court on other classes of Civil Courts, including District Judge and Additional District Judge. There is no requirement of making any corresponding amendment under the provisions of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, as it is self sufficient in itself not subject to other provision, whereas provisions of section 15(2) itself being subject to any other enactment for the time being in force.
15. Thus, on the parameters as has been set out, discussed and elaborated above, the argument advanced that any suit of the valuation of more than Rs. 25,000/- could not have been entertained by the District Judge or Additional District Judge is unsustainable on the face of it. There is no conflict in between the two provisions of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act as amended by U.P Act No. 37 of 1972 and the provisions as contained under U.P Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1991. Both the provisions can be read harmoniously and net effect of the same is that jurisdiction up to the limit of Rs. 25,000/- can be exercised by Judge Small Cause Court under the provisions of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, and as far as District Judges and Additional District Judges are concerned, they are empowered to exercise jurisdiction of Judge Small Cause Court for unlimited valuation, whenever there is relationship of lessor and lessee, and lease has been determined, under the provisions of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act.
16. The judgment in the case of Bank of India v. Ketan Parekh . 2008 8 SCC 148., clearly provides that even though subsequent Act has been enacted for special purpose and special area of operation, even then the said Act can be read harmoniously. Here also again this Court has harmonized the provisions quoted above, and there is no room of doubt that the District Judges and Additional District Judge are fully empowered to exercise jurisdiction of Judge Small Cause Court for unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. The first point is thus repelled.
17. Even otherwise, in the present case, issue of jurisdiction could not have been raised by the revisionist, keeping in view of the provisions of section 21(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows:
“21. Objections to jurisdiction.— (1)…………………
(2) No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.”
18. A bare perusal of the provisions would go to show that no objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. In the present case at no point of time any objection was raised in respect of jurisdiction of J.S.C.C Court with regard to pecuniary limit, and having lost, all such pleas are not available at this stage.
19. Now coming to the question raised by the revisionist with regard to the conduct of landlord dis-entitling him to any relief from any Court, as in his affidavit dated 27.10.2005 status of revisionist has been disputed that he was neither tenant nor licensee, in this background once said status was being disputed, then such suit was not maintainable and could not have been decreed. There appears to be complete misconception in the mind of the revisionist, for the simple reason that as far as revisionist is concerned, right from the day one his contention has been that there has been landlord-tenant relationship and the only dispute, which was being raised, was in respect of quantum of rent fixed inter se parties. Landlord-tenant relationship has never been disputed by the revisionist and even accepting his status as tenant deposits have been made under section 30 of the U.P Act No. XIII of 1972. Before Judge Small Cause Court, precise plea had been taken in the plaint of lessor, lessee relationship and there was admitted position with regard to lessor-lessee relationship and qua rate of rent in question, there was dispute which has been answered. The case in hand has been decided on admitted position, as such any averment made here or there, in other proceedings will not effect the merit of matter by any means. There existed landlord-tenant relationship and that there has been valid notice terminating tenancy, suit in question has been decreed. Once you accept that you are tenant, and plaint case specifically mentions relationship and based on the same proceedings have been initiated, then said claim has to be adjudicated on its own merit, and this is exactly what has been done in the present case. As admittedly, there has been landlord-tenant relationship and thereafter there has been valid notice terminating tenancy, then nothing more was required for decreeing the suit, specially when building in question is not covered by the provisions of U.P Act No. XIII of 1972.
20. This Court in the case of Raj Kumar Rajpoot v. Usha Devi Lahauti (Smt.) . 2009 74 ALR 88., has clearly taken the view that where building in question is not covered by the provisions of U.P Act No. XIII of 1972, and in this background once landlord has proceeded to exercise its authority by giving notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, then suit in question can be decreed, as landlord has got unfettered right to terminate the tenancy without assigning any reason, whatsoever, and at the time of terminating tenancy other grounds can be taken for filing suit. In the present case landlord tenant relationship is admitted, tenancy has been terminated followed by valid notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, then suit has been rightly decreed.
21. Consequently, revision has no merit. It is accordingly, dismissed. The revisionist is accorded six month's time to vacate the premises in question and hand over its peaceful vacant possession to the opposite party, subject to the condition that within one month from today affidavit shall be filed by the revisionist before the Judge Small Cause Court that premises in question will be vacated on or before expiry of the period as aforesaid, and entire decretal amount shall be paid. In the event of affidavit not being filed within one month from today, and decretal amount not being paid, the interim protection shall cease to operate, and landlord would be at liberty to proceed accordingly, and interim protection of this Court would not come to rescue of petitioner.
Revision Dismissed.