Satish Chandra, C.J:— This is a defendant's application in revision directed against a judgment decreeing a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for ejectments of the tenants and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. The suit was valued at Rs. 15,625,813. It was filed in the Court of the VIth Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Orai exercising powers of Judge Small Cause Court.
2. When the present revision came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, counsel for the defendant-applicant challenged the validity of the notification, dated October 25, 1972 issued by the High Court conferring on District Judges and Additional District Judges jurisdiction of Small Cause Courts on two grounds. In the first place, it was urged that the notification was ineffective and did not gain operative efficacy. In the next place, it was submitted that the notification as well as Sections 25(2) and 25(4) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 were discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge felt that the points raised by the applicant were of substantial importance. He accordingly referred the case to a larger Bench for opinion on these points, without framing the requisite questions of law. On the first point learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the notification issued by the High Court conferring on the District Judges and Additional District Judges jurisdiction of Judge Small Cause Courts was in effective because on October 25, 1972 the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 did not contemplate or permit such conferment of jurisdiction. Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was a bar to such conferment of jurisdiction the bar was removed by the enactment of sub-section (4) of Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act. This sub-section (4) was enacted by the U.P Civil Laws (Amendment) Act of 1973 which came into force on October 19, 1973. Though the Introduction of sub-section (4) of Section 25 was with retrospective effect from September 20, 1972 yet the notification which was issued by the High Court on October 25, 1972 was not validated. Hence the notification was still born and did not become effective. We are unable to accept this submission.
3. 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/-.
4. 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 authorized 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.
5. 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. But this was in respect of the jurisdiction of Courts of Small Causes created by the Small Causes Courts Act.
6. The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act conferred a special jurisdiction on the Court or Small Causes created under it. It did not deal with the question whether jurisdiction of the Courts of Small Causes may be conferred on other Civil Courts.
7. 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 death 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.
8. Section 25 provided:
“25. Power to invest Civil Judges and Munsifs with Small Cause Court jurisdiction.—(1) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, confer, within such local limits as. It thinks fit, upon any Civil Judge or Munsif the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 for the trial of suits, cognizable by such Courts, upon such value not exceeding one thousand rupees in the case of a Civil Judge or five hundred rupees in the case of a Munsif as it thinks fit, and may withdraw any jurisdiction so conferred;
Provided that in relation to suits of the nature referred to in the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the said Act, the references in this sub-section to one thousand rupees and five hundred rupees shall be construed respectively as references to five thousand rupees and one thousand rupees.
(2) The State Government may by notification in the official Gazette, confer upon any District Judge or Additional District Judge the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 for the trial of all suits (irrespective of their value), by the lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building-after the determination of his lease, or for the recovery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease or of compensation for the use and occupation thereof after such determination of lease, and may withdraw any jurisdiction so conferred;
Explanation.—For the purposes of the sub-section, the expression ‘building’ has the some meaning as in Article (4) in the Second Schedule to the said Act.
(3) The State Government may by notification in the official Gazette delegate to the High Court its powers under this section.
(4) Where the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes is conferred upon any District Judge or Additional District Judge by notification under this section, then, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. All suits referred to in sub-section (2) shall be cognizable by Court of Small Causes.”
9. The proviso to Section 25(1) as well as sub-section (2) were reenacted by the Civil Laws (Amendment) Act No. 37 of 1972. sub-section (4) of Section 25 was enacted by the U.P Civil Laws (Amendment) Act No. 19. of 1973 which came in force on January 19, 1973 but the introduction of sub-section (4) was made retrospective with effect from September 20, 1972, i.e, from the date of the enforcement of U.P Act No. 37 of 1972.
10. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 came in force on September 20, 1972. It authorized the State Government to issue the requisite notification. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 25 the State Government was authorized to delegate the power to the High Court. The State Government on September 22, 1972 issued a notification under Section 25(3) delegating to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad the powers of the State Government under Section 25. The High Court issued notification No. 525 dated October 25, 1972. It was published in the Gazette of November 11, 1972. By this notification the High Court conferred upon all the District Judges and Additional District Judges the jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Cause Court under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act No. IX of 1887, for the trial of all suits (irrespective of their value), by the lessor, referred to in the said sub-section (2).
11. In M.P Mishra v. Sangam Lal Agarwal,1 it was argued that without an appropriate amendment to Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the High Court could not confer such power on District Judges and Additional District Judges. M.P Mehrotra, J. meticulously traced the amendments made in the Small Cause Courts Act and the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act and, while repelling this submission, held:—
“It was next contended that, without an amendment of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act a 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 the lessee of the aforesaid variety 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 Muhsif or upon a 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 Munsifs in Section 15(2) where are no such pecuniary limits in respect of the District Judge 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 Judge of 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 Addl. Distt. Judge.”
12. In the case, the attention of the 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 Sec. 25. The argument is that the enactment of sub-section (4) to Section 25 shows that conferment of jurisdiction on Distt. Judges and Additional District Judges was not permissible without the non-obstante clause enacted in sub-section (4). Without sub-section (4) to Section 25, Section 15 of the Small Cause Courts Act bars any such conferment of unlimited jurisdiction on Distt. Judges and Additional District Judges. The argument has no substance.
13. Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act deal with the jurisdiction of Courts of Small Causes constituted and established by the 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 latter Act specifically deals with conferment of jurisdiction of a Judge Small Causes on the existing Civil Courts. Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act hence could not bar the conferment of jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Causes on the other Civil Courts. Further Section 15(2) itself operates subject to any other enactment for the time being in force. That will include Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act. Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act hence could not and did not bar conferment of jurisdiction of a Judge Small Causes on other classes of Civil Courts including District Judges and Additional District Judges.
14. sub-section (4) of Section 25 appears to have been enacted by way of abundant caution to remore 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 Judge 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 efficacy since the date it was issued.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Adarsh Bhandar v. Sales Tax Officer, Aligarh . AIR 1957 All. 475 F.B.. 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 authorized the State Government or the High Court to confer jurisdiction by issuance of a 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.
16. The next submission of 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 Judges have been authorized to exercise the powers of a Judge Small Causes in relation to suits between landlords and tenants irrespective of their value, it was submitted that these provisions introduced the vice of discrimination between a litigant who is 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 Causes 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 a Small Cause Court, matter irrespective of its value. All suits cognizable by a Court of Small Causes have been placed within the jurisdiction of Judge Small Causes because they need quick disposal. There was, hence, no justification in isolating suits between landlords and tenants only for being tried under the Small Cause Courts procedure irrespective of their value.
17. The principle of equality enunciated in Article 14 of the Constitution does not mean that every law must have universal application. The State has the power to classify persons or things for legitimate purposes. It is a well-known feature of the present day litigation that disputes between landlords and tenants are very frequent and they need quick settlement. This is because of acute shortage of accommodation in urban areas. To ameliorate the situation, the legislature thought it fit to place litigation between landlords and tenants under the Small Cause Courts procedure. It obviates the delay inherent in regular Civil Court Procedure and it obviates appeals. The category of litigation between landlord and tenant is a well-defined class. Giving it special treatment was hence a reasonable basis of differentiation with the other category of Small Cause Courts cases.
18. In Balsara's case,3 it was held that if a law deals equally with members of a well defined class, it is not abnoxious on the ground that it has no application on other persons. Legislation enacted for the achievement of a particular object or purpose need not be all embracing. It is for the Legislature to determine what categories it would embrace within the scope of legislation; and merely because certain categories which would stand on the same footing as those which are covered by the legislation are left out would not render the legislation which has been enacted in any manner discriminatory and violative of Article 14 (See Sakhmat v. State of Orissa . 1955 1 SCR 1004..)
19. Article 14 does not prevent the Legislature from introducing a reform gradually, that is to say, at first applying the legislation to some of the institutions or objects. (See Bishwambar v. State of Orissa),5 having common features or particular areas (See Ramchandra v. State of Orissa),6 only, according to the exengies of the situation.
20. The basis of classification can be geographical (see State of M.P v. Bhopal Sugar,7) or historical (See Mohan Lal v. Man Singh,)8 or according to difference in time (see Ramjilal v. Income Tax Officer, Mohindargarh)9.
21. The classification can be based upon the difference in the nature of the persons, trade, calling or occupation (see Pandurgang v. A.P.P.S.C),10 which is sought to be regulated by Legislation. Therefore, it cannot be said that since Section 25(2) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act confines its provisions to suits between landlords and tenants and it is, in any manner, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because it does not apply to other categories of Small Cause suits.
22. The submission that there was no reasonable basis for conferring jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Causes in respect of landlord and tenant matters only with unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction has no substance. The statement of objects and reasons appended to the Civil Laws (Amendment) Act No. 37 of 1972 shows that the issues involved in landlord and tenant matters are simple in nature. They do not become complex merely because of high valuation. The valuation is normally dependent upon the value of the involved building. The nature of the litigation does not change because of high valuation. The fact that litigation between landlord and tenant was subjected to Small Cause Court jurisdiction irrespective of value, does not, in our opinion, introduce the vice of discrimination in any respect. Both the submissions relating to the jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge to take cognizance of the present suit are, therefore, without merit. Let the papers of the case be laid before the learned Single Judge with this opinion.
23. Opinion given.