ORDER :- This is a defendants application under S.25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, against the order of the Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, exercising powers of the Judge, Small Causes Court, rejecting the defendants objection challenging its jurisdiction.

2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit in the court of the Judge, Small Causes, Muzaffarnagar, for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment from the cinema building known as "Taj Talkies", Muzaffarnagar, along with the electrical installations, refrigeration equipment, furniture, cooler engine and various other fittings and fixtures mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. The plaint allegations were that the plaintiff was owner of the cinema building which was constructed in the year 1971-72, and the same was let out to the defendant on rent at the rate of Rs. 4500/- per month, but subsequently the rent was reduced to Rs. 4000/- per mensem.

The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant has been in possession of the cinema since 7th July, 1972, but he failed to pay rent for a period of more than three months, thereby he committed breach of terms agreed between the parties. The plaintiff claimed decree for ejectment and also for recovery of a sum of Rs. 29000/- as rent and damages and future damages at the rate of Rs. 4000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per month with effect from 7-8-1974 till the date of delivery of possession. In addition to possession of the cinema building the plaintiff claimed possession of goods including furniture, electrical goods, coolers, fixture, equipment, machinery and screen as mentioned in the schedule to the plaint.

3. The defendant contested the suit on a number of grounds. In his written statement, the defendant asserted that he was a licensee, therefore the suit was not maintainable in the court of the Judge, Small Causes. In the alternative, the defendant further pleaded that even if he was a tenant of the building, the suit in respect of the cinema business which was let out to him was not maintainable in the Court of the Judge, Small Causes, and lastly, the defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Judge, Small Causes Court to try the suit on the ground that the valuation of the suit was Rs. 81,000/-. The Court below framed two issues (1) whether the defendant was lessee in the premises in suit and (2) whether the court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The Additional District Judge who was exercising the powers of the Judge, Small Causes Court, answered both the issues against the defendant. He held that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties as the defendant has been paying rent to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month treating him as landlord.

He rejected defendants contention that he was a licensee. The trial court further held that in view of S.25 of the Bengal, Assam and Agra Civil Courts Act, as amended by U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972, an Additional District Judge, while exercising powers of the Judge, Small Causes Court, had unlimited jurisdiction to try suits for ejectment and arrears of rent. The trial court rejected defendants objection that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the plaintiff had not let out building as defined under the said Explanation to Art.4 of the Second Sch. to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as along with the building, furniture, fixture and electrical installations and machinery was also let out to the defendant. Thereupon the defendant preferred this revision challenging the order of the Additional District Judge.

4. Learned counsel for the defendant has urged that the Additional District Judges finding that the plaintiff had let out only building and not the running cinema business are not in accordance to law. He urged that along with the building the plaintiff had let out machineries and other fittings necessary for running cinema business. The defendants tenancy was not in respect of a building as define

Click Here to Read the rest of this document