The main legal point established in the judgment is that the forum of a suit depends on the averments made in the plaint and the reliefs claimed in the suit, and the court's jurisdiction is determined based on these factors.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 30.8.2010 passed by the District Judge, Mirzapur in SCC Suit No. 4 of 2009, Firoz versus M/s National Auto Sales and others. Further prayer has been made for direction to the court below to transfer SCC Suit No. 4 of 2009 in another court having proper jurisdiction from the Court of Small Causes Court.

3. Facts of the case in brief are that on the basis of an agreement deed executed between the tenant -petitioners and landlord -respondents the petitioner came into possession over the accommodation in respect of a shop, godown and open land appurtenant from where they started their business. According to the petitioners, after expiry of the tenure of the agreement i.e. 11 months, the parties continued in possession of aforesaid property under an oral agreement.

4. The landlord respondent filed a suit for dispossession of the petitioners from the property in dispute. In paragraph no. 6 of the plaint filed by the landlord respondent it is stated that the land over which the shop in question is situated comes under village Bharuhna, Pergana Kantit, Tehsil Sadar, Mirzapur, has been an agricultural land on which the construction has been made after purchasing it in the year 2000 and therefore Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the land in dispute.

5. The tenant petitioners filed their objection stating that respondent is not the sole owner of the property in dispute as stated by him but is co owner alongwith his mother Haseena and that after expiry of the period of 11 months, the petitioners proposed for its renewal on which mother of the respondent gave her consent to the petitioners to continue over the property in question.

6. During pendency of the suit, the tenant petitioners filed an application on 30.8.2010 interalia that since the respondent himself has admitted that U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is not applicable over the disputed premises and in paragraph 24 of their objection, the petitioners have also reiterated the aforesaid fact that Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction over the premises in dispute, hence the aforesaid suit is not maintainable before the Small Causes Court.

7. After going through the record and hearing the parties, the court below rejected the application of the petitioners vide his order dated 30.8.2010, which has given cause for filing the present writ petition.

While passing the impugned order dated 30.8.2010 the court below has not considered the provisions of Section 3(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and as such the impugned order is wholly perverse, arbitrary and is not sustainable in the eye of law; that in paragraph no. 6 of the plaint the plaintiff respondent has himself stated that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable over the premises dispute as the same is situated in village Bharuhna, Tappa-84, Pargana Kantit, Tehsil Sadar, Mirzapur inspite of this the court below has passed the impugned order by overlooking the averments of the respondent plaintiff and that it is well settled that forum of a suit depends on what has been stated in the plaint itself.

8. Earlier, Writ Petition No. 47799 of 2010 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the High court vide order and judgment dated 13.8.2010. The petitioner submits that as he has not taken the aforesaid point in the earlier writ petition that the suit of the plaintiff respondent is not merely a suit for ejectment of the petitioners tenants and for the recovery of arrears of rent and damages but also for a declaration in regard to what is the annual reasonable rent of the premises @ Rs.9,000/- per month which cannot be decided by the court of Judge Small Causes.

9. It is submitted that in District Mirzapur the Small Causes Court is being presided over by the District Judge himself and as such there will b