Jurisdictional Issue Can't Be Raised Before Revisional Court When It Was Not Raised Before Small Causes Court: Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Order
The Supreme Court was considering a matter relating to a landlord-tenant dispute.
The Supreme Court upheld an eviction order observing that the jurisdictional issue could not be raised before revisional court when it was not raised before the Small Causes Court.
The Revisional Court had only to note whether the decree granted by the Trial Court was just and proper or not, it said.
The Apex Court was considering a matter relating to a landlord-tenant dispute.
The Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Sanjay Karol held, “Since the Trial Court had adjudicated the suit and had granted the decree in favour of the appellant herein by directing the eviction of the tenants/defendants/respondents, issue No.2 raised in the Revision Petition filed by them being Revision Small Causes No.16/2019 was wholly otiose. This was because all that the Revisional Court had to note was whether the decree granted by the Trial Court was just and proper or not. When the respondents herein had not raised any jurisdictional issue with respect to the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Courts to entertain the suit, in the face of the categorical admission made by them in paragraph 18 of their written statement, issue No.2 raised was unnecessarily raised”
Factual Background
The appellant, along with the third respondent, had purchased the suit schedule property situated at the Village of District Hathras, under a registered sale deed. The first respondent was a tenant on the property, and it was rented to him to run a service station. However, since March 2021, the first respondent stopped paying the rent, and the appellant learned that he had sublet the property to the second respondent. It was thus alleged that he was making an unlawful gain from the property and depriving the appellant of the monthly rents.
The appellant and third respondent then filed an eviction suit seeking the eviction of the first and second respondents from the scheduled property. The first respondent was directed to hand over possession of the disputed suit schedule property to the appellant and to pay the arrears of rent.
The Revision Petition filed by the first and second respondents was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the trial court. The appellant and third respondent filed a petition before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court upheld the findings to the extent of remanding the matter to the trial court to decide as to whether the scheduled property was open land and if the Small Causes Court had the jurisdiction to decide the suit. The present appeal was filed by the appellant to challenge this impugned order.
Reasoning
The Bench held that when there was an admission on the part of the defendants/respondents that the suit schedule property consisted of a room, a water tank, a service station and a jet pump installed with electricity connection which was being used for the purpose of washing of vehicles, then it couldn’t be said that the suit schedule property was an open land as such.
“We find that in the facts and circumstances of this case, raising of the said issue was wholly unnecessary and the correctness or otherwise of the decree only had to be seen. In view of the admission of the respondents herein, we do not think that any issue touching upon the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court to adjudicate the suit arose at all”, the Bench said.
Thus, setting aside the impugned order of the High Court and affirming the order of the Trial Court, the Bench ordered, “The respondents/defendants are directed to handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the appellant herein on or before 31st October, 2025.”
Cause Title: Amit Kumar v. Nihal Singh & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 584]