AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dilip Gupta, J.
The application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ''CPC'') has been decided by the Court of Small Causes by the order dated 1st February, 2012. This order has been assailed in this petition.
SCC Suit No.17 of 2006 was instituted by the plaintiff before the Judge, Court of Small Causes for ejectment of the defendant and in paragraph 5 of the plaint it was asserted that since the tenancy was for a godown, it will not be a ''building'' and so the provisions of the "U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972" (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') will not be applicable. Taking advantage of this fact, the defendant moved the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC alleging that since the plaintiff himself has come out with a case that the premises was not a ''building'', the suit could not have been instituted in the Court of Small Causes as it will be excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes under the Second Schedule to The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.
The Court of Small Causes, while deciding the application, observed that whether the godown is a ''building'' or not will be examined at the stage of hearing of the suit, more particularly when such objection has been raised after the stage of evidence.
There is no good reason to interfere with the impugned order at this stage since the Court of Small Causes has not finally determined the issue.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.