Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.:— Heard Shri Madhav Jain, counsel for the revisionist and Shri Satendra Kumar for the opposite parties.
2. This SCC Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.10.2016, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Firozabad in SCC Suit No. 01 of 2010. The suit for arrears of rent, eviction and damages and had been filed by the landlord, Om Prakash Agarwal, subsequently, represented by his heirs, on his death.
3. Challenge to this order is primarily on the ground that the valuation of the suit was Rs. 27,775/-. Therefore in view of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act 2015 enforced w.e.f. 07.12.2015, such a case could have been decided by a Civil Judge (Senior Division), working as a Judge Small Causes Court. An Additional District Judge, functioning as a Judge Small Causes Court is entitled to entertain and decide suits having a valuation in excess of Rs. 1 Lac.
4. 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 Nigam v. Smt. Batulan. It has been held that consequent to the amendment, in Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, an SCC Suit having a valuation between Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1 Lac shall lie before the Small Causes Court presided over by a Civil Judge (Senior Division). The suits having a valuation of more than Rs. 1 Lac would lie before the Additional District Judge/District Judge constituting a Small Causes Court.
5. Shri Satendra Kumar-I, who has filed their counter affidavit in Court today, has not been able to effectively rebut the submissions made by the counsel for the revisionist.
6. Under the circumstances, this Court finds that the order impugned is without jurisdiction and is hereby set aside. The SCC revision is allowed.
7. The matter is remanded back for a fresh decision, after hearing the parties, by the competent Small Causes Court, presided over by a Civil Judge (Senior Division).
8. Revision No. 407 of 2016 is also directed against the same impugned order but by another party. Since the impugned order has already been set aside herein-above, it is observed that the above order shall govern Rev No. 407/2016 also.