2010 Supreme(All) 1038

[2010(5) ADJ 7 (NOC)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAV, J.
Smt. MADHU GUPTA ....Petitioner
Versus
SATISH CHAND AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37325 of 2009 connected with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33434 of 2009, decided on 25th March, 2010)

Headnote:Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887—Section 15(2) (As amended)—Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887—Section 25(2)—U.P. Civil Law (Amending) Act, 1991—U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972—Eviction—Suit for—On ground of recovery of arrears of rent and damages—Objection on behalf of defendant/tenant is that since plaintiff themselves have valued suit at Rs. 40,326—Therefore, Judge SCC has no jurisdiction—Rejection of—Word “landlord” will include a “lessor” who may have a subordinate right—But, term “landlord” will include “lessor”—A landlord is a person to whom rent is payable—Therefore, by ‘lease’ a person acquires right of ‘tenancy’ or ‘lessee’—In view of notification No. 525 dated 25.10.1972 published in U.P. Gazette dated 11.11.1972 all District Judge and Addl. District Judge were bestowed jurisdiction of a Judge, Small Causes for trial of all suits irrespective of their value—It is to be read with U.P. Civil Law (Amendment) Act, 1991 w.e.f. 15.1.1991 and order of Section 15 of ACt No. IX of 1987—Difference in two terms “landlord and lessor”, tenant and lessee is not very material—It would not take away jurisdiction of SCC—Narrow interpretation of Act not permissible.

       Petition Dismissed.