Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—This is a defendant’s Civil Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Act No. 9 of 1887) against the order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/ Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar, whereby his application (49-Ga) for framing the issues has been rejected.

2. The essential facts are; the applicant / revisionist is a tenant of the premises bearing Municipal No. 361, Harrisganj, Cantt., Kanpur Nagar. The landlord-opposite party gave a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act No. 4 of 1882) to the tenant-revisionist for eviction and arrear of rent. The landlord instituted SCC Suit No. 79 of 2007 in the court of Judge, Small Cause Court for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction. The applicant-defendant contested the suit by filing his written statement on 23 December 2009.

3. On 17 July 2010 the tenant-revisionist moved an application 49-Ga for framing the issues. The said application has been rejected by the Court of Small Causes vide impugned order dated 31.10.2010. Feeling aggrieved the tenant/ revisionist has filed the present revision.

4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that a conjoint reading of the provisions of law contained in Section 15 of the Act No. 9 of 1887 and Order XIV Rules 4 & 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the CPC”) makes it clear that in the proceedings before the Judge, Small Cause Court, the issue should be framed before proceeding to decide the suit. He further urged that point for determination referred to in Rule 4(1) of the Order XX of CPC enjoins the Small Cause Court to frame the issue as the words “points for determination” have been used in the said Rule.

5. I have heard Sri Vijay Kumar Ojha, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.

6. The only issue, which falls for determination in the present revision, is whether in a suit filed under the provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is it imperative upon the Judge, Small Cause Court to frame the issues.

7. The Chapter III of the Act No. 9 of 1887 deals with the jurisdiction of the Courts of Small Causes. Section 15 enjoins that all suits of civil nature, of which the value does not exceed Rs. 500/- shall be cognizable by the court of small causes. (vide Uttar Pradesh Act 17 of 1991 in Section 15, for sub sections (2) and (3), has been inserted. The Section 15, as applicable in the State of U.P., reads thus;

“15. Cognizance of suits by Courts of Small Causes.—(1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes.

(2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five hundred rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.

(3) Subject as aforesaid, the Subs. By the A.O. 1950, for "Provincial Government"., [State Government] may, by order in writing, direct that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed one thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes mentioned in the order., For notification issued under this section, see different local Rules and Orders.

State Amendment

Vide Uttar Pradesh Act, 17 of 1991, Section 6 (w.e.f. 15.1.1991)., Uttar Pradesh.—In section 15, for sub-sections (2) and (3), substitute the following :

(2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.

Provided that in relation to suits by the lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease, or for recovery from him