https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303762 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. en-us Thu, 10 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Aug 2022 10:24:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303762 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303762