- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shri Shobhit Nigam Revisionist v. Smt. Batulan And Another Opposite Party.
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion arises from a revision petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 challenging the judgment and order dated 24.5.2016 of the District Judge which decreed SSC Suit No. 16 of 2011 (Smt. Batulan v. Ayub Khan). The revisionist contended that the Additional District Judge who decided the suit ceased to have pecuniary jurisdiction to do so because statutory amendments had altered the pecuniary limits of suits cognizable by Small Causes Courts. The subject suit is between a lessor and lessee for rent and eviction after determination of lease, valued at Rs. 44,000/-. The suit had been instituted and decided by a court of District Judge/Additional District Judge; the revision challenges that assumption of jurisdiction in light of amendments increasing the pecuniary limit for Small Causes Courts in Uttar Pradesh.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in view of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 (effective 7 December 2015) increasing the pecuniary limit for suits by lessor for eviction/recovery of rent to Rs. 1,00,000/-, the jurisdiction to try a suit valued at Rs. 44,000/- lies with the Small Causes Court presided over by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) rather than the District Judge/Additional District Judge.
- Whether the 2015 amendment (as reflected in its statement of objects and reasons emphasizing enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction "for the institution of civil suits and appeals") applies only to suits instituted after its commencement or also to suits already pending (i.e., whether the amendment affects pending suits or only future institutions).
Arguments of the Parties
Revisionist's Arguments
- The impugned judgment and order dated 24.5.2016 is without jurisdiction because, after the 2015 amendment, suits of the nature in question and of the valuation of Rs. 44,000/- were cognizable by the Small Causes Court presided over by Civil Judge (Senior Division), not by the District Judge/Additional District Judge.
- Had the suit been decided by a Small Causes Court, the revisionist would have had a statutory remedy of revision before the District Judge/Additional District Judge; because it was decided by the District Judge/Additional District Judge, that statutory remedy was denied, forcing the revisionist to approach the High Court and thereby eliminating the recourse under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution (as argued by the revisionist).
Respondents' Arguments
- The U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 applies only with regard to the "institution" of suits and not to suits already pending; reliance was placed on the statement of objects and reasons of the Amending Act to argue that pending suits would continue to be tried by the courts before which they were instituted.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mohd. Haneef v. Sunil Tuli, 2009 (1) ARC 750 | Held there is no conflict between Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act as amended; the provisions can be read harmoniously and District Judges/Additional District Judges are empowered to exercise jurisdiction for suits of rent and eviction after determination of lease for unlimited valuation. | The court relied on this decision to describe the earlier position in U.P. (post-1991) that District Judges/Additional District Judges handled higher-valuation rent and eviction suits and to show how the two provisions had previously been harmonized. |
| Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82 | Principle that the language used in a statute is the primary indicator of legislative intention; if the statutory words admit of one construction only, courts should not adopt another. | The court invoked this principle to justify following the plain and unambiguous language of the 2015 amendment to Section 15 rather than relying on the statement of objects and reasons to limit its application. |
| Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyala v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 15 SCC 677 | Observation that the preamble or statement of objects and reasons should not influence the meaning otherwise ascribable to the enacting parts unless there are compelling reasons. | The court cited this case to support its refusal to give primacy to the statement of objects and reasons of the Amending Act where the enacting words were clear. |
| Girdhari Lal and sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur, 1986 (SC) 1499 | Golden rule of construction: where statutory words are plain and unambiguous, effect must be given to them; legislative intention should be gathered first from the statute itself and then from other sources if necessary. | The court used this authority to reinforce the approach of literal interpretation of the 2015 amendment and to decline to interpret the statute contrary to its clear language. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court undertook a sequential analysis grounded in statutory history, administrative notifications, and principles of statutory interpretation as follows:
- Legislative and administrative background: The Provincial Small Causes Court Act establishes Small Causes Courts and, by Section 15 read with the Second Schedule, prescribes pecuniary limits for suits cognizable by such courts. Over time the limits were enhanced. For U.P., specific amendments (1972, 1991) and High Court notifications/resolutions (1991 notification allocating certain valuation ranges to Munsifs/Civil Judges; 1994 Administrative Committee resolution conferring Small Causes powers on senior-most Civil Judge (Senior Division)) shaped the practical jurisdictional landscape.
- Pre-2015 position: After the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991, Small Causes Courts presided by Civil Judge (Senior Division) tried rent/eviction suits up to Rs. 25,000/-, and District Judges/Additional District Judges tried higher-valuation suits. Mohd. Haneef v. Sunil Tuli was cited as recognizing harmonious reading of provisions that led to this allocation.
- 2015 amendment: The U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 (effective 7 December 2015) amended Section 15 to substitute higher values so that, in U.P., the pecuniary limit applicable to suits by lessor for eviction/recovery of rent became Rs. 1,00,000/- for Small Causes Courts (Civil Judge, Senior Division). The court noted the amended statutory text and reproduced the amended wording.
- Central interpretive question: Whether the 2015 amendment applies only to institution of suits (as argued by respondents, relying on the prefatory statement of objects and reasons which emphasised "institution") or also to pending suits already instituted before the amendment's commencement.
- Interpretation adopted: The court held that the amending language is unambiguous and plain. It concluded that the term "institution" as used in the statement of objects and reasons cannot restrict the clear operative words of the amendment. The court relied on established principles of statutory interpretation (as stated in Thalappalam, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and Girdhari Lal) that where statutory language is plain and admits of one construction, the literal meaning must be followed and the statement of objects and reasons cannot override the clear enacting words.
- Transfer of jurisdiction: The court also relied on Section 17 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (as applicable) to the effect that where a civil court ceases to have jurisdiction in respect of any case, the case may be had in the court to which the business of the former court has been transferred. By virtue of the 2015 amendment increasing the Small Causes Court pecuniary limit to Rs. 1,00,000/-, the District Judge/Additional District Judge had ceased to have jurisdiction over suits below that threshold concerning rent and eviction and those suits must now be tried by the Small Causes Court (Civil Judge, Senior Division).
- Application to the instant suit: The suit at hand was valued at Rs. 44,000/- (higher than the pre-2015 Civil Judge (Senior Division) limit of Rs. 25,000/-, but below Rs. 1,00,000/-). Since the 2015 amendment took effect on 7 December 2015 and its language is clear, the court held that jurisdiction as of that date in respect of suits falling within the amended pecuniary limit lies with the Small Causes Court irrespective of the date of their institution. Consequently, the Additional District Judge who decided the present suit assumed jurisdiction illegally.
Holding and Implications
Core Holding: The impugned judgment and order dated 24.5.2016 is set aside and the revision is allowed.
Direct consequences and implications noted by the court:
- The matter is remanded to the regular Small Causes Court presided over by the senior-most Civil Judge (Senior Division) of the district for its decision in accordance with law.
- With effect from 7 December 2015, jurisdiction to try all suits between lessor and lessee for rent and eviction under the proviso to Section 15(2) of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act as applicable to U.P., up to the valuation of Rs. 1,00,000/- lies with the Small Causes Court presided over by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), irrespective of the date of institution of the suit.
- District Judges/Additional District Judges no longer have jurisdiction to decide such suits except those having valuation over Rs. 1,00,000/-, and where a civil court has ceased to have jurisdiction by reason of the amendment, the cases are to be had in the court to which the business has been transferred (Section 17 cited).
- The court directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to all District Judges of U.P. to ensure necessary compliance so that all pending suits of rent and eviction after determination of lease falling under the proviso to Section 15(2) upto the valuation of Rs. 1,00,000/- be transferred to the Small Causes Court presided over by the senior-most Civil Judge (Senior Division) irrespective of the date of their institution.
The opinion does not state that it establishes a new binding precedent beyond the decision in this revision or speculate on broader jurisprudential effects beyond the administrative transfer directives and the legal position described above.
Pankaj Mithal, J.:— The judgment and order dated 24.5.2016 passed by the District Judge decreeing SSC Suit No. 16 of 2011 (Smt. Batulan v. Ayub Khan) is sought to be revised under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the Additional District Judge had ceased to have pecuniary jurisdiction to decide it.
2. The aforesaid Act provides for the establishment of Courts of Small Causes for the local limits of the area beyond the original civil jurisdiction of High Courts established in the Presidency Towns for the purposes of trying certain nature of civil suits in a summary manner.
3. The said Act vide Section 15 read with its Second Schedule provides that all suits of civil nature upto a particular value shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.
4. The aforesaid Act was amended time and again and the pecuniary value of suits cognizable by Small Causes Court was enhanced from time to time.
5. The said Act stood amended in its applicability to the State of U.P., also.
6. The State of U.P., vide Civil Laws (Amendment) Act 1972 added a provision to Sub-section 2 of Section 15 of the Act providing that the suits by the lessor for eviction of the lessee from a building after determination of his lease shall be cognizable by the Small Causes Court and that the reference to Rs. 2,000/- mentioned in Sub-section 2 of Section 15 of the Act shall be construed as Rs. 5,000/- in respect to the above nature of suits.
7. In this way the aforesaid Act in its applicability to U.P., classified the suits cognizable by Small Causes Courts into two groups ie. (i) all suits of the civil nature; and (ii) suits between lessor and lessee for arrears of rent and eviction from a building after determination of lease.
8. Section 15 of the Act read with the Second Schedule in its amendment to the State of U.P., vide Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 vests the power of trial of all civil suits upto the valuation of Rs. 5,000/- and that of the suits between the lessor and lessee for rent and eviction from a building after determination of lease upto the valuation of Rs. 25,000/- upon the Small Causes Court.
9. The High Court vide notification of 8 February 1991 provided that all suits of the nature referred to in the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act as applicable in U.P., shall be cognizable by Munsifs (now Civil Judge, Junior Division) upto the the valuation of Rs. 5,000/- and by the Civil Judge (now Civil Judge, Senior Division) upto the valuation of Rs. 25,000/-.
10. The High Court vide resolution dated 20.5.1994 of the Administrative Committee resolved that the senior most Civil Judge (Senior Division) in each district be conferred with the powers the powers of the Judge Small Causes Court.
11. Thus, the senior most Civil Judge (Senior Division) in each district of U.P., started functioning as the court of Small Causes to try suits of rent and eviction referred to in proviso to Section 15 (2) of the Act as applicable to U.P., having valuation upto Rs. 25,000/-.
12. Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 vide Sub-section (1) to Section 25 as applicable to U.P., empowers the High Court to invest Subordinate Judges (Civil Judge, Senior Division and Civil Judge, Junior Division) the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes under the aforesaid Act upto such value not exceeding five thousand rupees. At the same time Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the aforesaid Act invests the High Court to confer power upon any District Judge or Additional District Judge the jurisdiction of a Judge of the Small Causes under the Act for the purposes of trial of all suits irrespective of valuation by the lessor for arrears of rent and eviction of the lessee from the building after determination of lease.
13. The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 was amended vide the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 and Section 25 (2) of it was amended to construe Rs. 5,000/- referred to in Section 15 (2) of the Act as Rs. 25,000/- to bring the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court in consonance with the amended Section 15 (2) of the Act.
14. In Mohd. Haneef v. Sunil Tuli, 2009 (1) ARC 750 His Lordship of the Allahabad High Court resolving the conflict between Section 15 of the Act and Section 25 of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 held that 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 the net effect of the same is that jurisdiction up 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 the Judge Small Cause Court for unlimited valuation in suits of rent and eviction between lessor and lessee after determination of lease of a building.
15. In the light of the above provisions, notifications, amendments and the law laid down the position which was prevailing in U.P., since 1991 was that all suits between the lessor and lessee for rent and eviction were tried by the Small Causes Court presided over by senior most Civil Judge, Senior Division of the district upto the valuation of Rs. 25,000/- and those with higher valuation by the District Judge/Additional District Judge as Small Causes Court.
16. The instant suit is between the lessor and the lessee for rent and eviction from a building after determination of lease and is referable to proviso to Section 15 (2) of the Act. The valuation of the suit is admittedly Rs. 44,000/-. Therefore, it was instituted in the court of District Judge/Additional District Judge for trial as a Small Causes Suit as the Civil Judge (Senior Division) vested with power of Small causes Court was empowered to deal with suits having valuation upto Rs. 25,000/- only and the rest of the suits were cognizable by District Judge/Additional District Judge.
17. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court in respect of the above nature of the suits was enhanced by U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment Act) 2015 w.e.f. 7 December 2015 upto Rs. 1,00,000/- only leaving the trial of such nature of suits of higher valuation upon the District Judge/Additional District Judge as Small Causes Court.
18. In view of the above amendment it is contended that on the date of decision of the aforesaid suit having valuation of Rs. 44,000/- was cognizable by Small Causes Court presided over by Civil Judge (Senior Division) and not by the District Judge/Additional District Judge but the objection to this effect was brushed aside.
19. I have heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and another Sri Arvind Srivastava for the respondents.
20. The argument on behalf of the revisionist is that the impugned judgment and order is without jurisdiction. Had the suit been decided by the Small Causes Court, he would have got a chance to seek its revision before the District Judge/Additional District Judge. This statutory remedy has been snatched away from the revisionist and he had been compelled to prefer the revision before the High Court which has eliminated the recourse to remedy Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.
21. On behalf of the respondents it has been contended that the amendments brought about in Section 15 of the Act as applicable to the State of U.P. vide U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment Act) 2015 applies only with regard to institution of suit and not in relation to pending suits in view of the statement and objects & reasons of the said Amendment Act. Therefore, the suits already instituted before the above amendment would continue to be tried and decided by the court before whom they were instituted and pending.
22. Section 15 of the Act as initially existed reads as under:—
15. “Cognizance of suits by courts of Small Causes.-
(1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suits expected from the cognizance from the cognizance of a court of Small Causes.
(2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule and to the provisions of of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five hundred rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.
(3) Subject as aforesaid the State Government may, by order in writing, direct that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed one thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a court of Small Causes mentioned in the order.”
23. The aforesaid Section 15 of the Act in its applicability to the State of U.P., wef. 15.1.1991 after the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 reads as under:—
“(1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suits expected from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes.
(2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule and to the provisions of any 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 form a building after the determination of his lease or for recovery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof after the determination of the lease, the reference in this sub-section to five thousand rupees shall be construed as a reference of twenty five thousand rupees.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression ‘building’ has the same meaning as in Art. (4) in the Second Schedule.”
24. It appears that previously suits by lessor for eviction of the lessee from a building after determination of tenancy, upto the value of Rs. 5,000/- were cognizable by the Court of Small Causes but the aforesaid pecuniary jurisdiction was enhanced upto Rs. 25,000/- w.e.f. 15.1.1991.
25. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Courts in respect of the above category of suits has been further amended by the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment Act) 2015 w.e.f. 7 December 2015 and it has been provided that the Small Causes suits upto the valuation of Rs. 1,00,000/- between the lessor and lessee for the rent and eviction shall be cognizable by Small Causes Court which refers to courts presided over by Civil Judge (Senior Division). The suits of higher valuation would therefore lay before the District Judge/Additional District Judge.
26. The U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 amends Section 15 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 as amended in its application to U.P., with effect from 7 December 2015 as under:—
4. “In Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.-
(a) in sub-section (2) for the words “five thousand rupees” the words “twenty five thousand rupees” shall be substituted;
(b) in the proviso to sub-section (2) for the words “twenty five thousand rupees” the word “one lakh rupees” shall be substituted.”
27. Thus, Section 15 of the Act in its application to the State of U.P., after the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 2015 reads as under:—
“(1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suits expected from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes.
(2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed twenty 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 form a building after the determination of his lease or for recovery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof after the determination of the lease, the reference in this sub-section to five thousand rupees shall be construed as a reference of 1 lakh rupees.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression ‘building’ has the same meaning as in Art. (4) in the Second Schedule.”
28. The valuation of the suit at hand is Rs. 44,000/- ie., higher than Rs. 25,000/- and less than Rs. 1,00,000/-. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid amendment it falls within the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court presided over by Civil Judge (Senior Division) and not the District Judge/Additional District Judge on the date of its decision.
29. The prefatory note of statement of objects and reasons contained in U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment Act) 2015 states that the pecuniary jurisdiction of Small Causes Court in the State of U.P., requires to be enhanced for the ‘institution’ of civil suits and appeals and therefore it is necessary to amend the Small Causes Court Act, 1887.
30. The emphasis has been laid upon the word ‘institution’ to denote that the jurisdiction has been altered only for the purposes of filing of the suits and not for the trial of the pending suits.
31. The institution of the suits by necessary implication includes the trial of the suits also. Therefore, the change of jurisdiction is not only for the purpose of institution but for the trial of the suits also.
32. The language used in the Amending Act to amend Section 15 of the Act is unambiguous, plain and clear. It provides that the suits of rent and eviction upto the valuation of Rs. 1,00,000/- are triable by the Small Causes court ie., of the Civil Judge, Senior Division with effect from the enforcement of Amending Act. It leaves no scope for two opinions. It is a golden rule of interpretation that where the language is plain and clear, the literal meaning conveyed should be followed and there is no need for taking aid of either the statement of objects and reasons or the purpose behind enacting the provision.
33. In Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82 it has been observed that primarily the language employed in the statute is the determining factor of the legislative intention which must be found in the words used by the legislature itself and if the words used are capable of one construction only then it would not be open to courts to adopt any other hypothetical constrictions.
34. In Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyala v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 15 SCC 677 it was observed that the preamble or the statement of objects or reasons of any statute is not to influence the meaning otherwise ascribable to the enacting parts unless there is compelling reasons for it.
35. In Girdhari Lal and sons v. Balbir nath Mathur, 1986 (SC) 1499 it was held that the golden rule of construction is that where the words of statues are plain and unambiguous effect must be given to them. First, the legislative intention must be gathered from the statute itself, next from the preamble of the statute, next from the statement of objects and reasons, thereafter from legislative debates, reports of the Committee and commissions and finally from all legitimate and admissible sources which may throw light on it including the legislative history.
36. Thus, it is not proper for me to go into the objects and reasons behind the Amending Act and to interpret the provision in manner different from what it clearly expresses.
37. In this context Section 17 of The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 is also relevant and important. It provides that where any civil court has ceased to have jurisdiction with respect to any case, it may be had in the court to which the business of the former court has been transferred. Now by virtue of the amendment in the pecuniary jurisdiction, the District Judge/Additional District Judge has ceased to have jurisdiction over suits below the valuation of Rs. 1 lakh concerning rent and eviction form building. Therefore all suits including the above suit requires to be dealt with by Small Causes Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and not by the District Judge/Additional District Judge.
38. In view of the aforesaid discussion with effect from 7 December 2015 the jurisdiction to try all suits between the lessor and lessee for rent & eviction under Section 15 of the Act as applicable to the State of U.P., upto the valuation of Rs. 1 lakh irrespective of the date of their institution would lie before the Small Causes Court presided over by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the District Judge/Additional District Judge would not have jurisdiction to decide them except those having the valuation of over 1 lakh.
39. Accordingly, the assumption of jurisdiction by Additional District Judge in deciding the present suit having valuation of Rs. 44,000/- is illegal. It makes the judgment and order passed by him liable to be set aside.
40. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 24.5.2016 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the regular Small Causes Court presided over by senior most Civil Judge, Senior Division of the district for its decision in accordance with law.
41. A copy of this judgment be circulated to all the District Judges of U.P., for necessary compliance to ensure that all pending suits of rent and eviction from a building after determination of lease falling under proviso to Section 15 (2) of the Act upto the valuation of Rs. 1,00,000/- be transferred to the Small Causes Court presided over by senior most Civil Judge, Senior Division of the district irrespective of the date of their institution.
42. The revision is allowed.
Alert