ORDER :- This is a plaintiffs application in revision from the part of the order, passed by the First Civil Judge of Kanpur, holding that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the claim for recovery of arrears of rent.

2. The suit was by the landlord for the enhancement of rent under S.5 (4), U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (3 of 1947), (hereinafter called the Act). The plaintiff wanted the rent to be fixed at a sum of Rs.50/- per mensem and valued the suit at Rs.600/-, the amount of rent for one year. He also claimed Rs.900/- as arrears of rent for eighteen months at the same rate of Rs.50/-per mensem. One of the pleas taken in defence was that the claim for recovery of arrears of rent was Hot cognizable by the learned Civil Judge and such a claim could not be joined to a suit for fixation of rent under S.5(4) of the Act. This is the only point with which I am concerned in this revision.

3. The learned Civil Judge framed issue No.4 on the point but, as he himself has remarked, the issue is not happily worded, still the parties knew what it meant and the learned Civil Judge has decided only this issue by his order under revision. The learned Civil Judge has held that the claim for recovery of arrears of rent would be cognizable by a court of small causes and not by his court, and that Act 3 of 1947 did not contemplate a suit for arrears of rent. He further held that if the valuation of the suit for determination of rent and for recovery of arrears of rent had exceeded Rs.5000/-, he might have had jurisdiction to entertain both the claims; but, as the total valuation of both the claims is less than Rs.5000/-, he came to the conclusion that the claim for recovery of arrears of rent was not cognizable by him. The plaintiff has, accordingly, come up in revision to this Court under S.115, Civil P.C. and has challenged the correctness of the decision of the learned Civil Judge.

4. The learned counsel for the defendant opposite party has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this revision. His contention is that only an issue in the suit has been decided and this decision does not amount to the decision of any case within the meaning of the word as used in S.115, Civil P.C. In my opinion, this preliminary objection is not well founded. The result of the order of the court below is that a part of the claim has gone out of the suit and with respect to this part it cannot be said that no case has been decided.

5. The learned counsel drew my attention to the Full Bench case of - Suraj Pali Mt. v. Ariya Pretinidhi Sabha, U.P., 1936 All LJ 923 (FB). This case is an authority for the proposition that a revision is not maintainable from an order refusing to amend the pleadings. At the end of the judgment the learned Judge, delivering the judgment of the court, has said :

"Cases where the amendment comes under some other order of the Code, for example, the addition or substitution of parties, or striking off a pleading may amount to a case decided; but an order passed purely under Order 6, Rule 17 is not." In my opinion, the above decision does not touch the point in question before me; if anything, it only suggests that a decision concerning a point like the present one may amount to a case decided. I, therefore, think that there is no force in the preliminary objection.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant on the main issue arising in this revision is that the learned Civil Judge had jurisdiction to decide the claim for arrears of rent also, and such a claim could be joined to a suit for determination of a rent filed under S.5(4) of the Act. Learned counsel has relied on the provisions of S.18, Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, which provides that a Civil Judge will have jurisdiction to try any suit irrespective of its valuation, subject to the provisions of any other enactment which may be in force. His contention, therefore, was that the learned Civil Judge had jurisdiction to try a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document