P. KODDANDA RAMAYYA, J.

( 1 ) THESE civil revision petitions are filed against the judgment and decree under the Small Causes Courts Act (1st Addl. District Munsif, kakinada ). The plaintiff is the same in both the suits, but the defendants are different as they are in possession of different holdings of agricultural land as lessees of the plaintiff. It is stated in the plaint that under the lease deed the defendant lessee should pay the taxes to the government but he committed default and hence S. C. No. 39 of 1970 was filed for recovery of the tax paid by the landlord in view of the default by the tenant. S. C. No. 40/79 was filed for recovery of similar amount of the tax paid by the landlord in view of the default of the tenant and also some balance of rent due from him. The defence in both the suits is a plea of discharge. But the court below overruled the defence and decreed the suit.

( 2 ) SHRI. T. Bheemsen the learned counsel for the petitiones in both the civil revision petitions raised before me fof the first time the question of jurisdiction viz. , that the suits for recovery of rent are not maintainable, in view of the excepted suits enumerated in Art. 8 in the second Schedule to the Provincial Small causes Courts Act, 9 of 1837. Second Schedule reads thus;-" 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 cxcercise jurisdiction with respect thereto". Though the exact reference to the notification could not be traced, it appears as early as on 24th January, 1888, a Notification was made by the then Madras Government, as contemplated under Article 8 in the Second schedule mentioned above to the Act empowering all Subordinate Judges and District Munsifs to try on their small causes side all suits for rent falling within the pecuniary limit of their special jurisdiction vide (B. B. Mitra s provincial Small Causes Courts Act, Eleventh Edition, page 157 ). It is held in a reported judgment in L. Krishnaswami Naidu vs. Sri Ramulu by a divisional Bench consisting of Madhavan Nair and Curgenven. , JJ, that "under Art. 8. , Schedule 2 Provincial Small Causes Courts Act a suit for rent is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes which has been expressly invested with the power to try such a suit. All Subordinate Judges and district Munsifs within the Madras presidency have been invested with powers to try rent suits upon the small causas side, provided that they fall within the pecuniary limits of their small causes jurisdiction, to that the effect of this Article, read with the empowering notification, is to exclude all such rent suits from Schedule 2 and to make them cognizable by a Small Causes Court. In other words, effect of the notification is to delete Art. 8 from the schedule". Thus it is clear that in the Madras presidency long long ago the notification was made empowering the Small causes Courts to try the rent suits. This is also noticed by the Civil Justice committee stating that the fact that in Madras Presidency where the authority to exercise such jurisdiction has been given to all Subordinate judges and Munsiffs and has been so exercised for many years, no hardship has been felt in practice, must allay any such apprehension.

( 3 ) HENCE the existence of such power of the Small Causes Courts so far as Andhra Area of our State is concerned cannot be doubted, and art. 8 is not attracted.

( 4 ) I do not see any merits in the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and Civil Revision petitions are dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 50/- in both. CRPs dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document