1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abu Bakht, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Sri Siddharth Nandan, learned counsl for the respondent-landlord and perused the record.
2. Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17.2.2020 passed by J.S.C.C./Civil Judge (S.D.), Deoria and the order dated 13.11.2020 passed by the District Judge, Deoria.
3. By the impugned order dated 17.2.2020 application being paper no. 110Ga filed by the petitioner-tenant herein for consolidation of two suits, being Original Suit No. 107 of 2013 (Rajesh vs. Poonam) filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction with SCC Suit No. 06 of 2017, has been rejected on the ground that the Courts are different and the parties are also different and the subject matter of the suit is also different. It was also noticed that SCC suit can be heard by Judge Small Causes Court only and therefore, consolidation cannot be permitted and accordingly, the said application was rejected. Revision filed against the same was also dismissed.
4. Challenging the impugned orders, submission of learned Senior Counsel is that subject matter of the suit is same and raising of wall A and B as indicated in the suit for injunction is substantial in nature and involved in both the cases. He has placed reliance on a judgement of this Court in Anandan Gupta vs. Navin Agarwal and others, 1984 (2) ARC 447.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that both the courts are having different jurisdictions and both the suits cannot be tried together and the parties are also different. It is further submitted that subject matter of the suit is also different as in the original suit prayer for permanent injunction has been made and the SCC suit has been filed for rent and eviction, therefore, application filed in SCC suit for consolidation of suits has rightly been rejected by the courts below. He has placed reliance on a judgement of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Chandra Swaroop Sinha vs. Smt. Manorama Singh, AIR 1981 Alld. 230 and on a judgement of Hon'ble Single Judge in Ram Narain Gupta (since deceased) and others vs. Hari Om Agarwal and another, 2012 (1) ARC 664.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
7. It is not in dispute that previously instituted suit is the Original Suit No. 107 of 2013 seeking relief of permanent injunction and subsequently instituted suit is the SCC suit No. 6 of 2017 filed by the respondent-landlord herein rent and eviction.
8. Order IV-A inserted in State of UP vide UP Act 57 of 1976, Section 5 with effect form 1.1.1977 provides as under:
"1. Consolidation of suits and proceedings- When two or more suits or proceedings are pending in the same court, and the court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice, it may by order direct their joint trial, whereupon all such suits and proceedings may be decided upon the evidence in all or any such suits or proceedings."
9. The distinction between an original suit and SCC suit has been taken note in paragraph 10, 11, 15, 16 and 21 of Ram Narain Gupta (supra), which are quoted as under:
10. It will also be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Sections 15 as amended in the State and 16 of the Act which are as follows:-
"15. Cognizance of suits by Courts of Small Causes.--(1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suits expected from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes.
(2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes:
Provided that in relation to suits by the lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease or for recovery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease, or of compensation for use and occupation thereof after the determination of the lease, the reference in this sub-section to five thousand rupees shall be construed as a reference of twenty-five thousand rupees.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression ''building' has the same meaning as in Art. (4) in the Second Schedule.
16. Exclusive jurisdiction of Courts of Small Causes.-- Save as expressly provided by this Act or by any other enactment for the time being in force, a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes by which the suit is triable."
11. In the present, case the previously instituted suit is Original Suit No.197 of 2008. The relief claimed in this suit is for permanent injunction and for restraining the defendant-tenant from obstructing the light and air facilities of the plaintiffs. The subsequent suit is SCC Suit No.169 of 2008 pending before the Judge, Court of Small Causes for eviction of the defendant as he was in arrears of rent and had raised constructions without the consent of the landlords. The subsequent suit is required to be decided in a summary manner provided under the Act and the reliefs in the two suits is different.
15. The same is the position in the present case. The Judge, Court of Small Causes cannot grant the relief claimed in the Original Suit. It is for this reason that the application filed by the defendant for stay of the proceedings in the subsequent suit had been rejected.
16. The matter can also be examined from another aspect as to whether Section 10 CPC would be applicable to proceedings before the Judge, Court of Small Causes.
21. The aforesaid decisions clearly hold that for Section 10 CPC to apply, both the proceedings should be in suits between the same parties and it will not apply to proceedings initiated under any other Statute. In the present case SCC Suit has been filed under the provisions of the Act. It has, therefore, to be held that Section 10 CPC will not apply to proceedings initiated under the Act.
(Emphasis supplied)
10. It cannot, therefore, be disputed that both the suits are pending in different courts seeking different reliefs. The application was filed before the Judge Small Causes Court, which has no jurisdiction to decide the original suit for injunction.
11. For the discussions made hereinabove, I find that the case relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Anandan Gupta (supra) is of no help to him.
12. In such view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned orders.
13. Present petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 8.2.2021 Abhishek