JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard Miss. Rama Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned standing counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Sri Ravi Kant for respondent No. 3
2. The petitioners-landlord, aggrieved by an order dated 28th March, 1,997, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'IV' to the writ petition, passed by the trial court directing the return of the plaint for presentation before the regular civil court, as the suit in question is cognizable by regular civil court and not by Court of Small Causes, approached the revisional court by means of revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The revisional court vide its order dated 16th July, 1998, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'V' to the writ petition, maintained the order passed by the trial court and dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners-landlord. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The trial court relying upon the decision in Jyoti Ram v. District Judge, Saharanpur and Anr., 1995 (1) ARC 195, held that the suit is entertainable by regular civil court and not by Judge small causes court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-landlord submitted that in view of the provision of Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, which is reproduced below, 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 :
"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."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of her contention further relied upon the provision of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, which is reproduced below :
"15. Cognizance of suits by courts of small causes.--(1) A court of small causes that not take cognizance of the suits specified in the second schedule as suits excepted 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 hundred rupees shall be cognizable by a court of small causes.
(3) Subject as aforesaid, the State Government may, by order in writing, direct that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed one thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a court of small causes mentioned in the order."
5. It is not disputed that the suit in question is such which is cognizable by court of small causes, thus, it is submitted that in view of the aforesaid provision, the ratio of Jyoti Ram's case will not apply to the facts of the present case and the courts below have erred in returning the plaint to be presented before the regular civil court. I find substance in the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners-landlord. In view of the provision of Sections 15 and 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, the view taken by the trial court and the revisional court deserves to be quashed.
6. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 28th March, 1997 and 16th July, 1998, passed by the courts below, Annexures-'IV' and 'V' to the writ petition are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the trial court to decide the same and shall not reject the same that it is not cognizable by Judge Small Causes Court.