ORDER S.U. Khan, J.
1. The only point involved in this writ petition is as to whether a suit filed by landlord owner against tenant for eviction from tenanted accommodation as well as adjoining accommodation regarding which the allegation of owner landlord is that tenant has encroached upon the said property is maintainable before civil court or not. The contention of learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner is that suit for eviction in respect of tenanted portion is maintainable only before J.S.C.C.
Landlord owner respondent No. 3 Madan Mohan since deceased and survived by legal representatives has filed O.S. No. 31 of 1982 against tenant petitioner before Munsif, Mathura. In the plaint it has been alleged that defendant is tenant of two kothas and one hall and he has illegally encroached upon the adjoining room also. The defendant raised the plea that suit in respect of tenanted property was not maintainable before regular civil court. The trial court through order dated 30.4.1984 rejected the said contention and held that the suit was maintainable before the regular civil court. Against the said order Civil Revision No. 97 of 1984 was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by District Judge, Mathura on 11.7.1985, hence this writ petition. The courts below while rejecting the contention of the petitioner mainly placed reliance upon an authority of this Court in A. C. Varshney v. Smt. Bhagwati Devi .
2. Under Section 17, C.P.C. it is provided as under :
17. "Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate :
Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject-matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court.
3. Even if the aforesaid Section does not apply ipso facto to the suits where jurisdiction to decide the suit in respect of part of the property is vested in regular civil court and jurisdiction to decide the suit in respect of the other part of the property is vested in J.S.C.C. still the principle underlying the said Section will be applicable to such types of suits.
4. It has been held by the Full Bench Authority of this Court in Manzurul Haq and Anr. v. Hakim Mohsin Ali , that the court of small causes is a court of preferential jurisdiction and not of exclusive jurisdiction.
5. Under Order II, Rule 3, C.P.C. plaintiff may combine in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant. It has been held in Brij Kishore Jain v. IInd Additional District Judge, Aligarh and Ors. 1985 AWC 742, that provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of Small Causes Courts Act (which provide for cognizance of suits by courts of small causes) do not override provisions of Order II, Rules 2 and 3, C.P.C.
6. The following authorities cited by learned Counsel for petitioner are not directly on the point involved in this petition :
(1) Abdulla Bin Ali and Ors. v. Galappa and Ors. ;
(2) Vijay Kumar v. Mukund Das 2004 (4) AWC 3423 ;