This is a revision against the order of the Judge Small Causes returning the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented to the proper forum. The respondent in spite of service is not present.

(2) The sole question involved in this application is whether the suit as framed by the plaintiff is cognizable by the Small Causes Court or not. The suit is for the recovery of Rs. 220/- as hire for two boats for a period of three years. The learned Judge Small Causes has remarked that the suit is excepted under Article 8, of Schedule 2 of Small Cause Courts Act which reads under:

"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 High Court with authority to exercise jurisdiction with respect thereto."

The Counsel for the applicant has argued that the amount is not claimed as rent but hire for the use of the boats for a period of three years. It is true that the word rent has not been defined in the Small Cause Courts Act but the word rent is used in respect of immovable property like land, house and shops. The dictionary meaning of the word rent as has been stated by the trial Court is that rent includes hire for machinery. But hire for machinery is not excluded from the cognizance of Small Cause Court. It is only the recovery of rent other than the house rent that is excluded from the cognizance of the Court of Small Causes. In my opinion the hire of the boats will not be excepted from the cognizance of the Court Small Causes. It is only the rent other than the house rent which has been excepted. If we stretch the meaning of rent to include hire as well then the hire of machinery and other movable articles would also be excepted from the cognizance of the Court of Small Causes. That is not the scheme of the Act. This view is further supported by a, reference to the Limitation Act. Article 50 of the Limitation Act provides the period of limitation for the hire of animals, vehicles and boats or house-boat furniture while Article 110 provides for limitation for the arrears of rent. The word rent therefore has distinct meaning from the word hire and unless suits for hire are specially excluded from the cognizance of Court of Small Causes it cannot be held that the suit for hire would not lie in the Court of Small Causes. In Prohlad Patni v. Shashadhar Rai, 7 Ind cas 553 (Cal), it has been held that a suit to recover a sum payable under a contract by the defendant for plying boats in a private ferry is not a suit for rent within the meaning of Article 8, of Schedule II of the ProvinciaI Small Cause Courts Act and a Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3) I, therefore, allow this application, set aside the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court and direct that the suit be entered on its original

number and disposed of according to law. The respondent is not present. There will be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document