ORDER:- This is a defendants' revision application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 7-2-1975 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff-opposite party had filed a suit for ejectment of the defendants applicants from the accommodation in suit and for the recovery of arrears of rent etc. It was alleged that Balbir Singh defendant No. 1 had taken one room and one Kothri on a monthly rent of Rs. 25 for a period of two months. He took wrongful possession over one more Kothri (N) which was formerly let out at Rs. 14 per month. In spite of his transfer he did not vacate the premises and allowed his son defendant No. 2 to remain in possession of the same along with other members of his family. He committed default in payment of rent and started creating nuisance. The requisite notice to quit was given but in vain. Hence the suit.

3. Both the defendants contested the suit. According to them defendant No. 2 alone was a tenant of the entire premises on a rent of Rs. 14 per month and no ground for his eviction was made out. They denied having received any notice to quit.

4. The suit was tried by the Judge Small Cause Court, Muzaffarnagar. He arrived at the conclusion that the defendant No. 1 and not defendant No. 2 was the tenant of the premises in suit; that defendant No. 1 had not entered into wrongful possession of the Kothri 'N' but it was in his tenancy from before; that the rent of the entire accommodation was Rs. 14 per month; that the notice to quit was valid and that the defendant No. 1 was liable to ejectment because he committed default in the payment of rent. He further held that the said defendant having failed to deposit rent on the first date of hearing was not entitled to the benefit of Section 39 of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 and that defendant No. 1 did not create any nuisance. Accordingly the suit for possession over both the rooms and kitchen and for the recovery of Rs. 350 as arrears of rent from 1-9-1968 to 11-10-1970 and for the recovery of Rs. 131 as damages for use and occupation from 12-10-1970 to 22-7-1971 at Rs. 14 per month was decreed against defendant No. 1 pendente lite and future mesne profits were also awarded at the same rate subject to payment of court-fees in the Execution Department.

5. Both the defendants filed a revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act but remained unsuccessful. They have now come up in revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code mainly on four grounds.

6. In the first place it is urged that the Small Cause Court Judge had no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is based on two grounds, firstly, because the plaintiff had regarded defendant No. 1 as a trespasser of Kothari 'N' and suit for possession thereon should have been filed on regular side and could not be tried by the Small Cause Court. There is no force in this contention because on a reading of the entire plaint it is evident that the plaintiff demanded possession from defendant No. 1 of the entire accommodation including the Kothri 'N' even if he claimed to be its tenant. As will be just discussed the notice to quit was also given on the allegation that if defendant No. 1 regarded himself as a tenant he should deem his tenancy to be terminated on the expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The plaintiff claimed rent of the entire accommodation. Therefore, after the Civil Laws Amendment Act came into force, the suit was cognizable by the Small Cause Court only.

7. The jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court to try the suit is further assailed on the ground that the case was transferred to his court not from the court in which it was instituted but from a transferee court, and in view of K.K. Saxena v S.N. Misra (1975 All LR 360), Section 9 of the Civil Laws Amendment Act is not applicable to suits in transferee courts. This contention also does not carry force because the suit was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document