Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1978 (5) TMI 129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... damages. The case set up by the plaintiff was that the shop in dispute was let out to Ram Ratan Lal Khanna, father of defendant applicants No. 1 to 4 and husband of defendant applicant No. 5, on 2-6-1946 for a period of two years. During the continuance of the tenancy, U. P. Act No. III of 1947 came into force and Ram Ratan Lal continued to remain in possession as a tenant of the shop. His tenancy was terminated by a notice dated 5-6-1969. Ram Ratan Lal died on 2-12-1969. It was asserted that since Ram Ratan Lal was only a statutory tenant at the time of his death, no tenancy right devolved on the defendants and they were liable to ejectment and damages for wrongful occupation of the shop. After enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y, but not including a suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease, and for the recovery from him of compensation for the use and occupation of that building after such determination of lease. Explanation-- For the purposes of this Article, the expression 'building' means a residential or non-residential roofed structure, and includes any land (including any garden), garages and outhouses, appurtenant to such building, and also includes any fittings and fixtures affixed to the building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof. 4. The Article as it originally stood excepted the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes in respect of a suit for the possession of immovab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... second Sch. The suit was rightly instituted in the court of Munsif and its transfer to the Court of Small Causes on the enforcement of U. P. Act No. 37 of 1972 was illegal. It is true that both the parties submitted to the illegal transfer of the suit to the Court of Small Causes and no objection to the jurisdiction of the court was raised either in the trial court or in the revisional court but since the Court of Small Causes lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the acquiescence or even consent of the parties could not confer jurisdiction on it. Acquiescence waiver or consent of the parties may be relevant in objections relating to the pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction of the court but these factors have no relevance whe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed at any earlier stage of the case the objection should not be entertained at this stage. The question before the Full Bench was whether the judgment rendered in a suit of small cause nature instituted and tried as a regular suit in contravention of the provisions of Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was one without jurisdiction and nullity. The majority answered the question in the negative. The rule laid down in that case can be of no assistance to the plaintiff in the present case. The scheme of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is that out of the civil suits triable by regular courts all suits of a civil nature, not excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes, of a certain valuation shall be cognizable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the Civil Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to try suits of the nature specified in Section 15(2) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. In this case the Court was not at all concerned with the question whether the decree passed by a Court of Small Causes in a suit which it was not competent to try could be held to be valid. 8. The rule laid down in U. K. Seal v. A. B. A. Agamugan Chettyar (AIR 1938 Rang 35) and Suresh Chunder Maitra v. Kristo Rangisi Dasi (1894) ILR 21 Calcutta 249), for the aforesaid reason, does not apply in the present case. In Ram Lal v. Kabul Singh (1903) ILR 25 All 135) this Court rejected the reference on the reasoning that the plea of want of jurisdiction could have been met by facts showing that the want a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates