The main legal point established is that the Court of Small Causes must independently examine its jurisdiction before proceeding with a suit.

Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. –

Heard Sri Madhav Jain learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Yash Tandon learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of the present petition, the orders dated 3.9.2015, 24.2.2016 & 9.3.2016 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Buddh Nagar in S.C.C. Suit No.15 of 2013 (Sanjeev Kandhari & Ors. v. M/s FAIR GROWTH Exports Private Limited) are under challenge.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Suit No.15 of 2013 has been filed with the specific contention that the petitioner/defendant therein was a licensee of the suit property. The attention of the Court is invited to the plaint of the said suit filed on 1.7.2013. The plaintiff has specifically stated therein that the defendant/petitioner was inducted in the suit property as a licensee vide licence deed dated 25.5.2010 which was valid till 31.3.2019. Under the said deed, the defendant was required to pay the license fee regularly month by month on or before 10th of each month. The license fee was not paid strictly in the terms and conditions of license deed and, therefore, notice was served upon the defendant intimating revocation of license. The relief sought in the suit is for eviction of the licensee from the suit property and for recovery of license fee.

4. It appears that an objection was raised by the defendant by moving an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C on 3.2.2014. This application was kept pending and in the meantime amendment application dated 15.12.2015 was filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of plaint including relief. The contention therein is that the deed dated 25.5.2010 whereby the defendant was inducted in the suit property is actually a lease deed and has wrongly been termed as license deed in the plaint, relief was sought for eviction of lessee after determination of lease. Both the applications have been kept pending and in the mean time, an application under Order 15, Rule 5 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiff with the prayer to strike off the defence of the defendant. By order dated 24.2.2016, the Court below has observed that the application Paper No.54Ka for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. will be heard together with other applications.

5. The submission is that till date S.C.C. Court has not passed any order on the application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule11 C.P.C moved by the defendant. The specific ground is that J.S.C.C. Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction of a licensee in view of the specific bar created under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act regarding the jurisdiction of the Courts of Small Causes. The Court of Small Cause is barred from taking cognizance of the suit specified in the II Schedule appended to the Act.

6. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent on the other hand submits that the term "license deed" and "license fee" has mistakenly been used in the plaint and for amendment thereof an application under Order 6, Rule 17 has already been filed.

7. Before dealing with the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to go through the relevant provisions.

8. Section 15 and the relevant Clause (4) of the II Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 is as follows: -

"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 thousand rupees shall be cognisable by a Court of Small Causes.

(3) Subject as aforesaid the High Court], may by order in writing, direct that all suits of a civil nature of which the value do