Small Cause Court jurisdiction upheld where disputed premises were treated as a building and subletting finding showed no legal error.

The suit for ejectment and recovery of rent and damages was held cognizable by the Court of Small Causes because the property was found to be a non-residential roofed structure falling within the definition of a building under Article 4 of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The objection that consent could not confer jurisdiction was rejected, as the jurisdictional inquiry depended on the factual character of the property, and the parties could not later challenge that basis after treating it as a building. The finding of subletting to the second opposite party was treated as a pure finding of fact, with no legal infirmity shown, and the decree for arrears of rent and damages was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit for ejectment and recovery of rent and damages was cognizable by the Court of Small Causes as a suit relating to a building within Article 4 of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887; (ii) whether the finding that the property had been sublet to the second opposite party suffered from any legal infirmity.

Issue (i): whether the suit for ejectment and recovery of rent and damages was cognizable by the Court of Small Causes as a suit relating to a building within Article 4 of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

Analysis: The suit related to a small area let for business within a roofed structure. The Explanation to Article 4 defines a building to include a residential or non-residential roofed structure and appurtenant land, while excluding such landlord's suit for eviction of a lessee from a building after determination of the lease from the general bar on suits for immovable property. Since the property was held to be part of a non-residential roofed structure, the case fell within the Small Cause Court's jurisdiction. The objection that consent could not confer jurisdiction was rejected because the jurisdictional question depended on the factual determination whether the property was a building, and the parties having treated it as such were not permitted to approbate and reprobate.

Conclusion: The suit was cognizable by the Court of Small Causes, and the jurisdictional challenge failed.

Issue (ii): whether the finding that the property had been sublet to the second opposite party suffered from any legal infirmity.

Analysis: The challenge was directed only to the appreciation of evidence. The finding was based on the record and was treated as a pure finding of fact with no legal error shown. In any event, possession had already been delivered to the landlord, and liability for rent and damages continued until such delivery.

Conclusion: The finding of subletting and the decree for arrears of rent and damages were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed and the decree of the Court below was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the applicability of Small Cause Court jurisdiction depends on the factual character of the property as a building, a party that has treated the suit as relating to a building cannot later challenge that factual basis to defeat jurisdiction, and a concurrent finding of fact on subletting will not be interfered with absent legal infirmity.

---