Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—The tenants seek revision of the order dated 24.9.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad exercising power of the Small Causes Court in SCC Suit No. 73 of 2011 Rishiraj Singhal v. Govardhan Goyal and others, deciding one of the issues in the suit regarding jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court.

In this revision two points arise for my consideration:

1.Whether an open piece of land with a ‘Khatti’ would be a ‘building’ to attract the attention of the Small Causes Court?

And

2.Whether the suit is cognisable by the Small Causes Court?

It is not disputed that a plot of land with a ‘Khatti’ was let out on an annual rent of Rs. 65/- under registered deed of lease dated 3rd October, 1918 with permission to raise permanent structure over it.

2. The revisionists are presently the tenants of the said plot of land and the constructions which were subsequently raised thereon. The respondent is the present landlord. He instituted the above suit after terminating the tenancy vide notice dated 7.12.2006 for eviction of the revisionists from the property in question Nos. 14 and 15 (New Nos. 15 and 15A) Jagniganj, Ghaziabad and for damages. In the said suit, on the basis of the objections taken in the written statement that as the tenancy is in respect of an open piece of land the Court has no jurisdiction to hear, Court while framing issues, though no required in summary proceedings, framed issue No. 6 as to whether the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to hear the suit. The issue has been decided in favour of the respondent-landlord by the impugned order.

3. Ordinarily, in view of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure all suits are cognisable by a Civil Court unless the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly or impliedly barred by any statute. Under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Court of Small Causes is empowered to take cognisance of all suits of a civil nature up to a certain valuation which are not excluded from its jurisdiction as specified in Second Schedule to the Act. Second Schedule to Section 15 of the Act contains the list of the suits which are exempt from the cognisance of the Court of Small Causes. Clause (4) of Second Schedule to Section 15 of the Act in its applicability to the State of U.P. exclude a suit for possession of immoveable property or for recovery of an interest in such property from the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes but spares a suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease, and for recovery from him of compensation for the use and occupation of the building after such determination.

4. In view of the provisions of Section 15 read with Clause (4) of Second Schedule to Section 15 of the Act in its application to the State of U.P., it is apparent that a suit by a lessor for eviction of a lessee from a building after determination of lease and for damages is cognisable by a Court of Small Causes.

5. The word ‘building’ generally indicates a structure with a roof but the definition of ‘building’ in different acts may contemplate a building without a roof also.

The expression ‘building’ used in Clause (4) aforesaid has been defined in the explanation attached to the aforesaid clause. It defines ‘building’ to be a residential or non-residential roofed structure, and includes any land, garages, out-houses, appurtenant to such building, and also includes any fittings and fixtures affixed to the building for its beneficial enjoyment.

‘Building’ has been identically defined under Section 3(i) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and has been held to mean a roofed structure including the land underneath vide State of U.P. v. VII Additional District Judge, AIR 1993 SC 1238. However, ‘chabutras’ ie. open platform, wooden enclosures or covered tanks all part of a house or appurtenant to a house