2016 (8) TMI 1616 - HC - Indian Laws

Additional District Judge Lacked Jurisdiction in Eviction Suit Valued Under Rs. 1 Lakh per 2015 Amendment

Shri Shobhit Nigam Versus Smt. Batulan And Another

The HC held that the Additional District Judge lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to try a suit for eviction and rent valued at Rs. 44,000, as the Small Causes ... Seeking revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 on the ground that the Additional District Judge had ceased to have pecuniary jurisdiction to decide it - HELD THAT:- It appears that previously suits by lessor for eviction of the lessee from a building after determination of tenancy, upto the value of Rs. 5,000/- were cognizable by the Court of Small Causes but the aforesaid pecuniary jurisdiction was enhanced upto Rs. 25,000/- w.e.f. 15.1.1991. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Courts in respect of the above category of suits has been further amended by the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment Act) 2015 w.e.f. 7th December 2015 and it has been provided that the Small Causes suits upto the valuation of Rs. 1,00,000/- between the lessor and lessee for the rent and eviction shall be cognizable by Small Causes Court which refers to courts presided over by Civil Judge (Senior Division). The suits of higher valuation would therefore lay before the District Judge/Additional District Judge. Section 17 of The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 is also relevant and important. It provides that where any civil court has ceased to have jurisdiction with respect to any case, it may be had in the court to which the business of the former court has been transferred. Now by virtue of the amendment in the pecuniary jurisdiction, the District Judge/Additional District Judge has ceased to have jurisdiction over suits below the valuation of Rs.1 lakh concerning rent and eviction form building. Therefore all suits including the above suit requires to be dealt with by Small Causes Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and not by the District Judge/Additional District Judge. With effect from 7th December 2015 the jurisdiction to try all suits between the lessor and lessee for rent & eviction under Section 15 of the Act as applicable to the State of U.P., upto the valuation of Rs.1 lakh irrespective of the date of their institution would lie before the Small Causes Court presided over by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the District Judge/Additional District Judge would not have jurisdiction to decide them except those having the valuation of over 1 lakh - the assumption of jurisdiction by Additional District Judge in deciding the present suit having valuation of Rs. 44,000/- is illegal. It makes the judgment and order passed by him liable to be set aside. The impugned judgment and order dated 24.5.2016 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the regular Small Causes Court presided over by senior most Civil Judge, Senior Division of the district for its decision in accordance with law - Revision allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Additional District Judge had pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the Small Causes Suit involving rent and eviction of a lessee from a building after determination of lease, valued at Rs. 44,000/-. 2. Interpretation and applicability of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter 'the Act') as amended, particularly in relation to pecuniary jurisdiction of Small Causes Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 3. Effect of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 on the pecuniary jurisdiction of Small Causes Courts and whether it applies to suits pending before the amendment. 4. Whether suits instituted prior to the 2015 amendment but pending trial should be tried by courts as per the jurisdictional limits prevailing at the time of institution or as per the amended limits. 5. The legal consequences of trial of a suit by a court lacking jurisdiction under the amended provisions. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 & 2: Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Small Causes Courts and District Judges under Section 15 of the Act and related provisions - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 establishes Small Causes Courts for summary trial of certain civil suits within specified pecuniary limits. Section 15(2) of the Act specifies that all civil suits of value not exceeding a certain amount shall be cognizable by Small Causes Courts, with exceptions. In Uttar Pradesh, amendments through the Civil Laws (Amendment) Acts of 1972, 1991, and 2015 have progressively enhanced the pecuniary limits for suits cognizable by Small Causes Courts, especially in suits between lessor and lessee for rent and eviction after determination of lease. The 1991 amendment raised the pecuniary limit for such suits from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-, and the 2015 amendment further enhanced it to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (as applicable in U.P.) empowers the High Court to confer Small Causes Court jurisdiction on Civil Judges (Junior and Senior Division) and on District Judges/Additional District Judges, with the pecuniary limits aligned to those in Section 15 of the Act. Precedent establishes that suits between lessor and lessee for rent and eviction after determination of lease and valued up to Rs. 25,000/- are triable by Small Causes Courts presided over by Civil Judge (Senior Division), and those above Rs. 25,000/- by District Judge/Additional District Judge as Small Causes Court. In the cited precedent, the Court held there is no conflict between Section 15 of the Act and Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887; both provisions are to be read harmoniously. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court examined the statutory provisions, amendments, and notifications issued by the High Court to determine the distribution of pecuniary jurisdiction between Small Causes Courts and District Judges/Additional District Judges. It was found that before the 2015 amendment, suits valued above Rs. 25,000/- were triable by District Judges/Additional District Judges as Small Causes Courts. The suit in question, valued at Rs. 44,000/-, was therefore instituted before the District Judge/Additional District Judge Small Causes Court in accordance with the then prevailing jurisdictional limits. - Application of Law to Facts: Since the suit was for eviction and rent recovery after determination of lease and valued at Rs. 44,000/-, it fell outside the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Small Causes Court before the 2015 amendment, and was rightly instituted before the District Judge/Additional District Judge Small Causes Court. - Conclusions: Prior to the 2015 amendment, the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to try such suits valued above Rs. 25,000/-. Issue 3 & 4: Effect of the 2015 Amendment on Jurisdiction and Pending Suits - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 amended Section 15 of the Act, increasing the pecuniary limit for suits by lessor for eviction and rent recovery after determination of lease from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- for Small Causes Courts presided over by Civil Judge (Senior Division). The statement of objects and reasons of the 2015 Amendment Act emphasized that the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction was intended for the 'institution' of suits and appeals. Statutory interpretation principles from Supreme Court precedents emphasize that where statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the literal meaning must be followed without resort to objects and reasons. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the language of the 2015 amendment is clear and unambiguous, extending the pecuniary jurisdiction of Small Causes Courts presided over by Civil Judge (Senior Division) to Rs. 1,00,000/- for rent and eviction suits. The Court rejected the argument that the amendment applies only to suits instituted after its commencement, holding that the amendment applies to all suits irrespective of their date of institution. The Court relied on Section 17 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, which provides that where a civil court ceases to have jurisdiction, the suit shall be tried by the court to which the business has been transferred. Accordingly, since the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Judges/Additional District Judges Small Causes Courts ceased for suits valued below Rs. 1,00,000/-, such suits pending trial must be transferred to and tried by the Small Causes Court presided over by Civil Judge (Senior Division). - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents contended that the amendment applies only to institution of suits and not to pending suits, relying on the statement of objects and reasons. The Court held that the statutory language controls over the preamble or objects and reasons, and therefore the amendment applies to all suits including those pending trial. - Application of Law to Facts: The suit valued at Rs. 44,000/- was pending trial after the 2015 amendment came into force. Under the amended Section 15, this suit falls within the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court presided over by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), not the Additional District Judge. - Conclusions: The 2015 amendment applies to suits pending trial and not only to those instituted after its commencement. The suit valued at Rs. 44,000/- must be tried by the Small Causes Court presided over by Civil Judge (Senior Division). Issue 5: Legal Consequences of Trial by a Court Lacking Jurisdiction - Relevant Legal Framework: Section 17 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 provides that where a civil court ceases to have jurisdiction, the suit shall be tried by the court to which the business has been transferred. General principles of jurisdiction require that a court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and pecuniary limits to try a suit. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that the Additional District Judge ceased to have jurisdiction over suits valued below Rs. 1,00,000/- after the 2015 amendment. The trial and decision of the suit by the Additional District Judge was therefore without jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that such assumption of jurisdiction renders the judgment and order liable to be set aside. - Application of Law to Facts: The impugned judgment and order dated 24.5.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge in a suit valued at Rs. 44,000/- was without jurisdiction. Hence, the judgment and order were set aside and the suit was remanded to the Small Causes Court presided over by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) for trial in accordance with law. - Conclusions: Trial and decision of the suit by the Additional District Judge was illegal due to lack of jurisdiction. The appropriate remedy is to set aside the impugned order and remand the suit to the competent Small Causes Court. Additional Observations: - The Court directed circulation of the judgment to all District Judges in U.P. to ensure compliance and transfer of all pending suits of rent and eviction after determination of lease valued up to Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Small Causes Court presided over by the senior most Civil Judge (Senior Division), regardless of the date of institution.