Smt. Seema Yadav And Others vs Gayatri Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 8696 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

                Reserved On:- 22.07.2021 
 
   Delivered On:- 27.07.2021 
 
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 15 of 2013
 

 
Revisionist :- Smt. Seema Yadav And Others
 
Opposite Party :- Gayatri Kumar
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Abhay Raj Singh,Mohan Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ravindra Kumar Mishra,N.D. Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

Order on Civil Miscellaneous Review Application No. 6 of 2018

1. Heard Sri A.K. Mishra and Sri N.D. Shukla, learned counsels for the review applicant (plaintiff-respondent) and Sri Mohan Yadav, counsel for the opposite parties (defendant-revisionists).

2. This review application has been filed by review-applicant praying for review of the judgment and order dated 24.04.2008 passed by this Court and decide the civil revision aforesaid afresh.

3. Learned counsel for the review-applicants has submitted that this Court has considered Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Act, 1887 which provides for the cognizance of suits by court of small causes and the valuation of the suits to be cognizable by the same but has not considered Section 25 of Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 which confers jurisdiction of trial of all suits (irrespective of their value), by a lessor for eviction of a lessee from a building after determination of his lease, etc. He has submitted that in the present case the decree was passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act) / Additional District Judge, Allahabad and, therefore, the jurisdiction of Additional District Judge was unlimited. The finding of the Court that it was limited to Rs. 25,000/- only when the suit was decided was not applicable to the present case since it was not decided by Civil Judge (Junior Division) or Civil Judge (Senior Division) but by Additional District Judge exercising the powers of small cause court.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention:-

1. Shobhit Nigam Vs. Batulan and Another (2016) LawSuit (All) 2998

2. Mohd. Haneef vs. Sunil Tuli, 2009 (1) ARC 750

3. Om Prakash Agarwal Since Deceased Thr Lrs And Ors. vs. Vishan Dayal Rajpoot and Another, LAWS(SC) 2018 1058

5. Sri Mohan Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant-revisionists (opposite parties) has submitted that when the above noted revision was heard the judgments placed before this Court now were not placed therefore the review application cannot be decided on the judgments which are being placed before this Court for the first time.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the view that the issue of jurisdiction or lack of same, being raised in a review petition requires to be addressed since this Court has dismissed the suit of the review-applicant on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court. Even otherwise the jurisdiction of a Court is not decided by the arguments of the counsel for the parties but by the provision of statute. In case the statute confers jurisdiction it will remain irrespective of the submission of the counsel for the parties. Jurisdiction of Court cannot taken away or conferred on the basis of the submissions before the Court.

7. This Court in the case of Shobhit Nigam Vs. Batulan and Another (Supra) has held as follows:-

" 1. 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 cognisable 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.

2. In this way the aforesaid Act in its applicability to U.P., classified the suits cognisable 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.

3. 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.

4. The High Court vide notification of 8th 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 cognisable by Munsifs (now Civil Judge, Junior Division) upto the valuation of Rs. 5,000/- and by the Civil Judge (now Civil Judge, Senior Division) upto the valuation of Rs. 25,000/-.

5. 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.

6. 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/-.

7. 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."

8. In Mohd. Haneef v. Sunil Tuli, 2009 (1) ARC 750 this Court in 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.

9. The Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Agarwal Since Deceased Thr Lrs And Ors. vs. Vishan Dayal Rajpoot and Another (Supra) has elaborately dealt with legal position of the jurisdiction of different small causes courts. The relevant paragraphs are as follows :-

"1. Two enactments namely (i) The Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 and (ii) The Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, were passed with regard to constitution, jurisdiction of Civil Courts in the then North-Western Provinces both being enforced w.e.f. 01.07.1887. The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to Civil Courts in Bengal, the NorthWestern Provinces and Assam. Section 3 of the Act provides for Constitution of Civil Courts. Section 4 relates to number of District Judges, Subordinate Judges and Munsifs. Section 17 dealt with continuance of proceeding of Courts ceasing to have jurisdiction. Section 18 dealt with extent of original jurisdiction of District or Subordinate Judge (for the State of Uttar Pradesh, the word "Subordinate" was substituted with the word "Civil"). Section 19 dealt with extent of jurisdiction of Munsif. Section 19 as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh was substituted by U.P. Act No. 17 of 1991 was to the following effect:-

"19(1) Save as aforesaid, and subject to the provisions of sub-section(2), the jurisdiction of a Munsif extends to all like suits of which the value does not exceed ten thousand rupees.

(2) The High Court may direct by notification in the official Gazette, with respect to any munsif named therein, that his jurisdiction shall exceed to all like suits of such value not exceeding twenty five thousand rupees as may be specified in the notification."

2. Section 25 deals with power to invest Subordinate Judges and Munsifs with Small Cause Court Jurisdiction. Section 25 of the Act as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh is as follows:-

"[25.[1] The High Court 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 Cause Courts Act, 1887 for the trial of suits cognizable by such Courts up to such value not exceeding five thousand rupees 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 (2) of Section 15 of the said Act, the reference in this sub-section to five thousand rupees shall be construed as reference to twenty-five thousand rupees.]

[(2) The High Court 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 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 this subsection, the expression `building' has the same meaning as in Article (4) in the Second Schedule of the said Act.]

[(3)]x x x ]

[(4) Where the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes is conferred upon any District Judge of Additional District Judge by notification under section, then, notwithstanding anything contained in section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, all suits referred to in subsection (2) shall be cognizable by Court of Small Causes.]"

10. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that the District Judge and the Additional District Judge have unlimited jurisdiction to try the suit as Judge of a court of small causes. The suit in the present case was valued at Rs. 27,000/- and the pecuniary jurisdiction of Additional District Judge was above Rs. 25,000/- and unlimited at the relevant time, therefore, the Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The suit of the review applicant was dismissed by this Court on the ground of jurisdiction.

11. It is hereby held that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as Court of small causes at the relevant time and hence the suit is remanded to the trial court for decision afresh, decree of the trial court having been set aside on other grounds also. Since the suit is being remanded for fresh decision the trial court is expected to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date a copy of this order duly downloaded from official website of this Court is filed before it.

11. The review application is partly allowed.

Order date:- 27.07.2021

Rohit