TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (10) TMI 288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for ejectment from the land ABCD, being part of house No. 382, situate in Nai Bazar, Purani Basti, district Basti. 3. The Defendants filed an objection that the suit was not cognizable by the regular court, namely, the Civil Judge, Basti, and was cognizable by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Basti. Consequently, the suit was transferred for disposal before the Judge, Small Cause Court, Basti. The 2nd Additional District Judge,. Basti, exercising the powers of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Basti, decreed the suit for ejectment as also for arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The suit was decreed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Basti, on 25th October, 1983. It is this judgment, which has been impugned in the present revision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, Basti. 9. On 4th August, 1980, the revisionists moved an application in the court that the suit is for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent and means profits and that the suit is only cognizable by the Judge, Small Cause Courts. On 6th August, 1980, in view of the application, it appears that in view of the facts on the record, that the property in dispute could be construed to be a building, the learned Counsel, for the Plaintiff opposite parties accepted the contention made by the revisionists and agreed that the suit may be transferred to the Judge, Small Cause Court, as desired by the revisionists. The District Judge, consequently, on 12th September, 1980, transferred the suit to the court of the Judge, Small Cause Court.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rea with a roofed structure. It is, in fact, a nonresidential roofed structure. 12. Section 15(1) of the Act, which is relevant for the decision of this case, is quoted below: 15(1). A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes by which the suit is triable. By virtue of this Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, the suits specified in the Second Schedule are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. In the Second Schedule, Article 4 is in the following terms: 4. A suit for the possession of immovable property or for the recovery of an interest in such property, but not including a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of a lessee from a non-residential roofed structure then such a sutt would be cognizable by a Judge, Small Causes Court. In the instant case, as I have already held above, the suit is for the eviction of a lessee by the lessor from a building which is a non-residential roofed structure. In the circumstances, this suit is clearly cognizable by the Court of Judge Small Causes. 16. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently urged that the revisionists had himself moved an application to the effect that the suit is cognizable by a Court of Judge, Small Causes, and he cannot now be permitted to urge this question in this revision. The argument of the revisionists, however, on the other hand, is that consent cannot confer jurisd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has been filed by the lessor for eviction of a lessee is in relation to a building or not, the jurisdiction of the Court would be dependent upon the determination of the question whether the property in dispute is a building. If the parties agree at a certain stage of the proceedings that the suit relates to a building then, in that event, they cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath and later urge that the suit does not relate to a building. In the instant case, initially, the revisionists urged that the suit was in relation to a building. The evidence was brought on the record to the same effect. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff opposite party finding that the suit would relate to a building, ultimately, agreed ....