S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree passed in small Cause Suit No. 43 of 1995 by the principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. The suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 535. 00 towards arrears of makthas of Rs. 200. 00 for the year 1993; Rs. 200. 00 for the year 1994 and rs. 135/- for the year 1995 due from the defendant being the revision petitioner herein. The revision petitioner mainly contends that there is no landlord and tenant relationship existing in between the plaintiff and the defendant. He never took ac. 0-17 cents of land situated in S. No. 286 of lusarigutlapadu on lease at any time. He has also denied the liability to pay the amount. It is also contended that the suit itself is not maintainable under the provisions of the Provincial Small Cause courts Act, 1887. After trial, the suit is decreed with Costs. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is preferred.

( 2 ) THE point for consideration is whether the Small Causes Court has got any jurisdiction to try the suit for recovery of rent for Maktha.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff remained ex parte before this Court. The main contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit for recovery of Maktha falls under Cl. 8 of II Schedule to the provisions of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, and there is no specific jurisdiction conferred on the Small Cause Court by the state Government. The suit for recovery of rent in respect of agricultural lands is not maintainable.

( 4 ) BEFORE adverting to the said contentions, it is necessary to have a look at the provisions of Provincial Small Cause courts Act, 1887. Section 15 of the Act read as follows: 15. Cognizance of suits by Court s of small Causes: (1) A court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suits excepted 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 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. Clause (8) of the Second Schedule reads as follows:"a suit for the recovery of rent, other than house rent, unless the Judge of the Court of Small Causes has been expressly invested by the State government with authority to exercise jurisdiction with respect thereto";

( 5 ) IT is clearly stated that a suit for the recovery of rent, other than house rent, cannot be tried unless the Judge of the Court of Small Causes has been expressly invested by the State Government with authority to exercise jurisdiction, I have secured the notification from the Registry of this Court. The notification does not make a mention that the Judge has been conferred with the power to try the Small Cause Suit, in respect of recovery of rent other than the house rent. In the absence of conferring the power on a judge in the notification, it can be said that the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Hence, there is much force in the contention of the revision petitioner s counsel that the suit for recovery of maktha, other than the house rent cannot be entertained, unless the State Government conferred the jurisdiction specifically on the judge. This is a case where such a notification has not been made by the government. Hence, the suit itself is not maintainable under the provisions of provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. In view of my finding that the suit itself is not maintainable, there is no need to decide the other aspects. In that view of the matter, the judgment and decree passed by the lower court is not in accordance with law and it is lia

Click Here to Read the rest of this document