A.K Banerji, J.:— By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1-7-1992 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut in S.C.C Suit No. 39 of 1988 by which the petitioner's application for transferring the suit to the Court of Judge Small Causes was rejected. The contesting respondent had filed a caveat and by the consent of the parties the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents Nos. 2 to 7 filed S.C.C Suit No. 39 of 1988 against the petitioner for ejectment on the ground that the accommodation in question was a new construction and U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable. The suit was valued for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 7,140. The said suit which was filed before the District Judge was transferred to the Court of VIIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut exercising the powers of Small Causes Court as the valuation of the suit was over Rs. 5000. The said suit was decreed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut on 26-3-1991.
3. A revision was preferred against the said judgment and order before this Court. The said revision was allowed and remanded back to the said Court with the directions that the trial Court shall record a definite finding on the basis of the existing evidence whether the shop in question were in existence in the year 1960–1961 and whether in their place new constructions were raised in the year 1979. Against this judgment dated 9-8-1991 passed by this Court, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, the same was dismissed by the following orders:
“The S.L.Ps are dismissed. The Additional District Judge may dispose of the matter remanded to him by the High Court at the earliest preferably within six months from today.”
4. The matter thereafter, came back before the respondent No. 1, restored on its original number and proceedings commenced before the said Court. An application was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the said Court on 18-5-1992 stating that as an amendment was made in the Provincial Small Causes Court Act by the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1990, by which Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1987, was amended, the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes in the matters of suit filed for eviction by lessors against the leases was increased to Rs. 25,000 and hence the case should be sent back to the Court of Civil Judge exercising the jurisdiction of Judge Small Causes, to be decided by him. This application was heard by the respondent No. 1 who dismissed the said application by his order dated 1-7-1992. It is this order that has been challenged before me in the present writ petition.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge to hear this matter has ceased to exist after the amendment and now the suit is only to be tried by the Judge Small Causes, Meerut. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has referred to two decisions of this Court report in AIR 1975 Alld 425, M.P Misra v. Sangam Lal Agarwal and AIR 1978 Alld 129, Trilok Singh v. Smt. Jamuna Devi. I do not agree with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is note-worthy that while allowing the revision filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge decreeing the plaintiff's suit this Court had remanded the matter back to the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut with certain directions. This order was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment of this Court. The Supreme Court also directed the Additional District Judge to dispose of the matter remanded to him by the High Court preferably within six months. It cannot be disputed that the suit was filed in the Court of District Judge and transferred to the Court of the VIIIth Additional District Judge as the valuation was over Rs. 5000, and the said Court than had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The said Court was invested with the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes in terms of Section 25(2) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act. The matter was specifically remanded to the said Court by the order dated 9-8-1991 by this Court. The said order was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition and the respondent dent No. 1 was directed to decide the matter preferably within six months. Thereafter, the said Court was seized of the matter and was proceeding with the hearing of the said Suit No. 39 of 1988. Under the circumstances, the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted that respondent No. 1 had ceased to have jurisdiction and the matter should be transferred to the Court of Civil Judge who was exercising the power of a Judge Small Causes to the extent of valuation of Rs. 25,000. Thus, the order passed by the respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be incorrect, illegal or without jurisdiction. So far as the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are concerned, they do not apply to the facts of the present case or decide the controversy involved in the present case. I hold that since the matter was specifically remanded to the VIIIth Additional District Judge by this Court and the said order was confirmed by the Supreme Court with a direction to the VIIIth Additional District Judge to decide the matter, the said Court will have jurisdiction to decide the suit.
6. In the result the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is being dismissed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously as already directed by the Supreme Court.
7. Petition dismissed.