Skip to content


B.N. Khosla Vs. S.L. Nayar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 1224 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1956All131
ActsDisplaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act, 1947 - Sections 4; Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - Schedule - Article 8
AppellantB.N. Khosla
RespondentS.L. Nayar
Appellant AdvocateB. Dayal, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateP.M. Verma, Adv.
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
civil - suits - section 4 (ii) of displaced persons (institutions of suits) act, 1947 and schedule ii of article 8 of provincial small cause courts act, 1887 - suit for rent of an immovable property though arising out of dues relating to immovable property can not be termed a suit relating to immovable property - suit for rent to be filed always with small causes court - suit for immovable property cannot be filed in small causes court. - .....j. 1. this is a plaintiff's application in revision. the plaintiff brought a suit against the opposite party for arrears of rent on account of a house of which the plaintiff was the owner and the opposite party was the tenant. both the parties have come from the punjab. the plaintiff resides in dehra dun while the opposite party resides at jullundhar. the suit was filed in the court of small causes and has been dismissed on account of want of jurisdiction in that court.the learned judge did not consider at all the applicability of the displaced persons (institution of suits) act of 1947. under section 4(ii) of this act the plaintiff was entitled to bring the suit at dehra dun because the cause of action had arisen only at lahore, which is now situate in the west pakistan.2. learned.....
Judgment:
ORDER

V.D. Bhargava, J.

1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision. The plaintiff brought a suit against the opposite party for arrears of rent on account of a house of which the plaintiff was the owner and the opposite party was the tenant. Both the parties have come from the Punjab. The plaintiff resides in Dehra Dun while the opposite party resides at Jullundhar. The suit was filed in the Court of small causes and has been dismissed on account of want of jurisdiction in that Court.

The learned Judge did not consider at all the applicability of the Displaced Persons (Institution Of Suits) Act of 1947. Under Section 4(ii) of this Act the plaintiff was entitled to bring the suit at Dehra Dun because the cause of action had arisen only at Lahore, which is now situate in the West Pakistan.

2. Learned counsel for the opposite party relied on Section 4 Clause (ii) of the Act and urged that the suit related to an immovable property and, therefore, Section 4 will not apply. I am of opinion that the suit does not relate to immovable property. The suit relates to realisation of rent and is now a money suit.

The rent itself which is due certainly related to an immovable property but a suit for rent can always be filed in the Small Cause Court though no suit for immovable property can be filed there. The suit for rent of an immovable property is not a suit relating to the immovable property.

3. I, therefore, set aside the decree passed by the learned Judge Small Cause Court and remand the suit to his Court with the direction that the suit shall be restored to its original number and heard on merits.

4. The application in revision is accordingly allowed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //