D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the findings recorded by the Court of Small Causes on issues no. 6 and 7 against the defendant-revisionist. Issue No. 6 reads as under: "whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit?" issue No. 7 reads as under ; "whether the suit is barred by U. P. Act 13 of 1972"

( 2 ) IN compliance of order of this Court passed on 19th May. 1997 in Civil Revision No. 147 of 1997 between the parties, the court below instead of deciding issue No, 6 as preliminary issue, proceeded to decide issues No. 6 and 7 as preliminary issues, on the ground that the two issues are interconnected.

( 3 ) THE brief facts alleged in the plaint, copy Annexure-1 are that open plot of land was given on lease by the landlady to defendant No. 1. M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. For 20 years. The open plot was given for establishing a Petrol Pump and selling petrol products. The lease deed was executed on 18th September, 1957. There was provision for renewal of lease. The period prescribed in the lease expired, but the lease was not got renewed. Tenancy was determined by a notice. Request for renewal of lease after the expiry of the period of lease was rejected by the landlady. A suit for eviction by demolition of structures raised by the defendants and also for permanent injunction to defendant No. 1 not to supply petrol products to the dealer with effect from 1st November, 1996 was filed on the regular side in the civil court.

( 4 ) THE defence was that the suit was cognizable by the Court of Small Causes and not by the civil court. On this plea, the above two issues were framed. The court below decided both the issues in negative against the revisionist, hence this revision.

( 5 ) THE first point for determination in the revision is whether the civil court has jurisdiction to try such suit. Jurisdiction of a court is to be determined on the basis of allegations made in the plaint and also keeping in view the reliefs sought in the plaint. On mere assertion of the defendant in the written statement, jurisdiction of a court cannot be ousted. From the allegations made in the plaint, it is clear that open plot of land was let out by the landlady to defendant No. 1 for establishing a Petrol Pump and for selling petrol products. Copy of lease-deed has also been filed as Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit. From Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit, it is clear that open piece of land fully described in the lease-deed was let out and not any structure raised by the landlady. Structures were raised by the dealer/licensee for selling petrol products. The first relief in paragraph 16 (1) of the plaint is a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove all structures, machinery, etc. And deliver vacant possession of open land in the shape it was let out. Other relief is that with effect from 1st November, 1996 entire work of supply and sale of petroleum product be stopped and injunction be granted accordingly against defendant No. 1 not to supply diesel and other petroleum products to the dealer and sale of petrol products be also prohibited. Decree for possession by eviction of the defendants was also sought.

( 6 ) IT is, therefore, clear from the allegations made in the plaint as well as from the reliefs sought in the plaint that it was a suit for eviction of the lessee and also the dealer occupant from the open land let out to defendant No. 1 by demolition of structures raised thereon. Permanent injunction was also sought that defendant No. 1 be restrained from supplying petroleum products to the dealer and the sale of petroleum products be also restrained. It is not a case where the landlady has let out any building to defendant No. 1. A suit for eviction from the open land will always be cognizable by the civil court and not by the court of small causes. After amendment to section 15 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act, only such suits for eviction shall be maintained in the co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document