Pecuniary jurisdiction in remanded Small Cause Court matters remains with the directed court; concurrent findings on alterations stood.

A remanded Small Cause Court matter continued before the court specifically directed by the High Court, and the amended pecuniary limit did not automatically divest that court of jurisdiction. A belated objection to pecuniary jurisdiction also failed because such a defect does not vitiate the decree absent failure of justice, and the jurisdiction conferred on District Judges and Additional District Judges remained effective. On the merits, concurrent findings that the tenant had made substantial structural alterations without the landlord's consent were supported by the evidence and were not shown to be perverse, so they were not interfered with in revision. The revisions were therefore found to lack merit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Additional District Judge had pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the remanded SCC case after the amendment to Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. (ii) Whether the findings on material alterations to the demised premises were illegal or perverse.

Issue (i): Whether the Additional District Judge had pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the remanded SCC case after the amendment to Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

Analysis: The amended pecuniary limit in Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 was held to be prospective and not to operate so as to automatically transfer a matter already remanded by the High Court to the court specifically directed to decide it. The objection to pecuniary jurisdiction was also not taken at the earliest opportunity. The Court further held that a defect in pecuniary jurisdiction does not render the decree void in the absence of failure of justice, and that the conferment of Small Cause Court jurisdiction on District Judges and Additional District Judges under Section 25(2) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 remained operative.

Conclusion: The objection to pecuniary jurisdiction failed and the decision was upheld on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the findings on material alterations to the demised premises were illegal or perverse.

Analysis: The Court relied on the evidence, including the commissioner's report and oral testimony, to hold that substantial structural alterations had been made without the landlord's consent and that the concurrent factual findings of the court below were supported by the record. In revisional jurisdiction, such findings could not be interfered with unless shown to be perverse, which was not established.

Conclusion: The findings on material alterations were sustained and no perversity or illegality was found.

Final Conclusion: The revisions were found to be devoid of merit, and the impugned decree was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A remanded Small Cause Court matter remains triable by the court specifically directed by the High Court, and a belated objection to pecuniary jurisdiction will not vitiate the decree absent failure of justice; concurrent factual findings on structural alteration are not open to interference in revision unless perverse.

---