The District Judge and Additional District Judge have jurisdiction to try suits for recovery of arrears of rent or compensation for use and occupation of premises irrespective of their value under section 25(2) and (4) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887.

V. K. Mehrotra, J.

1. IN this revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the principal submission of the counsel for the defendant-applicant is that the provision permitting trial of a suit of the nature involved in this case by the District Judge and the Additional District Judge as a Small Cause, irrespective of the amount claimed as arrears of rent or damages for use and occupation of the premises was bad, for, even the District Judge and Additional District Judge could not be treated to have jurisdiction to try suits of a valuation exceeding Rs. 5,000/- as provided in section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The decision of this Court in the case of M. P. Mishra v. Sangam Lal Agarwal, 1975 AWC 425 in which this Court up- held the competence of the District Judge and the Additional District Judge to try suit involving an amount in excess of Rs. 5,000/-, is characterised as one which requires reconsideration.

2. AFTER hearing counsel for the applicant at some length, I am not satisfied that the decision in the case aforesaid, which was followed by the same Hon'ble (Mr. Justice M. P. Mehrotra (Judge in a later decision in Trilok Singh v. Smt. Jamuna Das, AIR 1978 Allahabad 129, requires reconsideration. For the reasons contained in the judgment, with which I am in respectful agreement it is hot possible to accept the submission made by the learned counsel on the aspects of the case considered by M. P. Mehrotra, J.

By way of an additional argument, it was suggested by the counsel for the applicant that sub-section (4) of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 had to be limited in its operation to the taking of cognizance by the District Judge or an Additional District Judge upon whom the powers to try the suit as a small cause were conferred. It was urged that in sub-section (2) of section 25, where it is specifically mentioned that the State Government could confer upon the District Judge or the Additional District Judge the jurisdiction of a Judge of Court of Small Causes, it was provided that it had to be under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which meant that the pecuniary limit had to be confined to the one provided in section 15 (1) of the Small Cause Courts Act. In respect of the words 'irrespective of their value' contained in sub-section (2), the submission made was that these words were put in to obviate amendment of this sub-section in case the pecuniary jurisdiction provided for in section 15 was increased or decreased.

3. IT is true that section 25 (2) talks of conferment of the jurisdiction of the Judge of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act yet it cannot be over-looked that the Legislature has used clear words that suit by the lessor for ejectment of a lessee from a building, after determination of his lease or for recovery from him of arrears of rent for a period thereof, during the continuation of the lease or compensation for the use and occupation thereof after such determination of lease shall be triable by Courts of Small Causes irrespective of their valuation. In view of the unequivocable words in which the Legislature has expressed its intention in this sub-section, it would not be possible to accept the submission that by some rule of interpretation limited meaning should be given to them in the manner suggested by the learned counsel. IT is also noticeable that in .sub-section (4) of section 25 it has clearly been provided that notwithstanding anything contained in section 15 of the Small Cause Courts Act, all suits referred to in sub-section (1) shall be congizable by the Court of Small Causes where the jurisdiction of a Judge of the Court of Small Causes is conferred on a District Judge or an Additional District Judge. This sub-section makes the intention of the Legislature absolutely clear, namely, that it wanted to confer upon the District Judge or the Additional District Juge power to try suits of the nat