Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—The present petition is directed against the order dated 11th of January, 2000 passed by the respondent No. 1 in a pending S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 1998. The respondent No. 2 (who died during the pendency of the writ petition) instituted the said suit in the Court of J.S.C.C. District Judge (Dacoity Chhetra), Lalitpur against the present petitioners for the ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent, damages, house tax, water tax together with interest on the allegation that the defendants are in arrears of rent etc. since 1st of May, 1985 which were demanded through notice dated 22nd of June, 1998 but the defendants failed to pay the same. The details of various amounts outstanding against the defendants (the present petitioners) have been detailed in the plaint. A sum of Rs. 8,015.50 has been claimed as interest on the arrears of rent. In the written statement filed on behalf of the present petitioners the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not disputed. It has been pleaded that Shri Harbhajan Singh took the disputed shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- in the year 1973 and no water tax or house tax is payable. The allegation that the rent was subsequently enhanced was denied. However, it is not necessary to notice the defence in detail except that it was pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to get any interest on the arrears of rent and the Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. An application dated 30th of August, 1999 under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C., giving rise to the present writ petition was filed on the pleas inter alia that the plaint should be rejected as no decree for interest can be passed and is legally barred and the Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it is valued above Rs. 5,000/-. In other words, the plea of pecuniary jurisdiction was pressed into service. The trial Court by the order dated 11th of January, 2000 dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved the present writ petition is at the instance of the defendants.

2. Shri A.K. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contention of the defendants as were raised in the Court below and submitted that in view of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, a Judge, Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to try a suit valued upto Rs. 5,000/-. The suit whose valuation exceeds Rs. 5,000/-, is not cognizable by a Judge, Small Causes Court and is liable to be tried as a regular suit in view of the aforesaid section. The further contention is that the decree for interest cannot be granted by a Court of Small Causes and as such the suit is partly not cognizable by the Judge, Small Causes Court and the only remedy left is to file a separate suit for the recovery of the interest amount.

3. The aforesaid contentions were refuted by the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent landlord and he placed reliance upon the following two judgments of this Court :

1. M.P. Mishra v. Sangam Lal Agarwal, AIR 1975 All 425.

2. Rajendra Shah v. Smt. Kamla Devi, 1983 A.R.C. 337.

4. He also placed the notification dated 25m of October, 1972 issued under Section 25 (2) of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887.

5. I have given careful consideration to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. The notification dated 25th of October, 1972 issued under Section 25 (2) of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 reads as follows :

“No. 525.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (Act XII of 1887), as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 sub-section (3) of the said Section 25 to the High Court, the High Court is pleased to confer upon all the District Judges and Additional District Judges, the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Act IX of 1887), for the t