Basant Kumar Khanna and Another vs Smt. Subodh Rani and Others

S.K. Phaujdar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The appeal is directed against concurrent decrees of the trial court and the first appellate court directing eviction of the present two Appellants who were held to be unauthorised occupants of the suit property. The appeal is being pressed on the ground that the suit should not have been tried before the regular civil side as a court of small causes could only have the Jurisdiction in the matter. The array of the parties in the plaint suggests that the Defendant No. 1 was described as a tenant under the Plaintiff while Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (the present Appellants) were described as unauthorised occupants after the premises were physically vacated by the original tenant. The Plaintiff never accepted the present two Appellants as tenants. The written statement of these two Appellants also indicate that they also denied any relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and themselves. It is true that they had raised a plea that they were tenants under another person and the Plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property. There has been a finding of fact on the question of ownership of the Plaintiff-Respondent by the two courts. The two courts have also found that the present Appellants were nothing better than unauthorised occupants of the suit premises. Under these circumstances, it may not be stated that any relationship of landlord and tenant had ever existed between the Plaintiff and those two Appellants so to bring the case within the purview of Article 4 of Schedule 2 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. On this score, therefore, it may not be held that the suit was triable, so far the present Appellants are concerned, before a court of small causes.

It may be viewed from another angle. The suit was filed not only against these two unauthorised occupants, it was against the original tenant also. The learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Plaintiff had a right to evict the tenant as well as the unauthorised occupants and out of these two causes of action, atleast one was triable before a regular court and, as such, the Joining of two causes of action before the regular court was not at all illegal. I find sufficient force in this contention. A case law was cited before me as in Kehar Singh Vs. Yash Pal and others, . It was an eviction matter before the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the Respondents were sub-tenants or direct tenants of the landlord. There was a concurrent finding of the trial court and the first appellate court that the Respondents were sub-tenants. The Supreme Court ruled in this case that it was a finding of fact and no substantial question of law arose from these findings, which required to be probed in a second appeal. Here was suit in which consistently the two courts had found that the present Appellants were unauthorised occupants and this point of fact may not be open to challenge in this second appeal. The only substantial question of law concerning the Jurisdiction of the civil court has already been answered.

Under the said circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed. The interim order stands vacated.