Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Shri Ramanand Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shashi Prakash Mishra holding brief of Shri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present petition is directed against the judgment and orders dated 14.10.2016 and 6.2.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), FTC, Basti and the District Judge, Basti in Original Suit No. 285 of 1988 (Chandra Kala v. Md. Zaid) and Civil Revision No. 9 of 2017 (Md. Zaid v. Chandra Kala Devi and others); respectively.

3. The dispute being raised in the present petition is with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and try the suit filed in the year, 1988 for eviction of the defendant and recovery of arrears of rent.

4. It is vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said suit could not be entertained and cannot be tried by the Civil Court in view of Section 15(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts, Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1887’) which clearly provides the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. The Courts below had erred in rejecting the application raising question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court on the ground that the said plea was raised at a belated stage. It is contended that the issue of jurisdiction is purely legal in nature and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even before the Executing Court as the decree passed by a Court lacking in jurisdiction would be null and void since its inception.

5. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents/plaintiffs, on the other hand, submits that the issue of jurisdiction dealt with by the Courts below does not require any interference in the present petition inasmuch as, the Civil Court cannot be said to be lacking in jurisdiction to try the matter of civil nature in its plenary power under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He further submits that the relief of demolition of illegal constructions raised by the defendant could not have been granted by the Small Causes Court as it would be beyond its jurisdiction, and as such there is no defect of jurisidiction.

6. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Apex Court in Gangabai v. Chhabubai, 1982 (1) SCC 4, Full Bench decision of this Court in Manzurul Haq v. Hakim Moshin Ali, 1970 AIR (All) 604, judgment of learned Single Judges in Abdul Hamid v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Mainpuri, 2000 (1) AWC 276 and Radha Devi v. Special Judge Ghazipur and others, 2013(2) ADJ 299, to substantiate that the jurisdiction of Civil Court to try a Suit of Small Causes Court nature is not barred and the decree passed in such a suit will not be null and void.

7. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submits that in District Basti, the Small Causes Court had been constituted and was operating at the time of filing of the suit. In view of the exclusive nature of the jurisdiction of the Courts of Small Causes to try a suit between landlord and tenant, it was incumbent upon the Civil Court to return the plaint for fresh presentation in the Competent Court of jurisdiction i.e. Small Causes Court. It is urged that the ratio of the judgments relied by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts of the present case inasmuch as, on the date of filing of the eviction suit, the Small Causes Court was available in District Basti.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Though the issue of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the eviction suit with the relief of arrears of rent is purely legal in nature, however, few facts of the instant case are relevant to be noted before the Court dwell on the said issue.

9. The suit for eviction and arrears of rent was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents in the year, 1988 pleading therein that the defendant/petitioner had materially altered the nature of the rented property. Further, since June 1987, he did not tender the rent.