Small Cause
Courts Act, 1887

Section—15(1)
read with Article (4) of the Second Schedule

When
a defendant refuses to attorn to the new landlord the latter has got the option
to ask for his eviction either as a tenant continuing in the suit premises from
before but not paying rent on demand or as an unauthorised occupant. In the
present case, the plaintiff by conscious choice filed the suit for eviction of
the defendant as an unauthorised occupant liable for eviction without any
notice. Such a suit is not maintainable in the Court of Small Causes in view of
Section 15(1) read with Article 4 of the Second Schedule of the Act.

Md. Faziur
Rahman Shah Vs. Md. An- fur Rahman alias Badsha Chairman 16 BLD (AD)1 79

Section—15(2)

Generally
suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed one thousand taka is
triable by a Court of Small Causes. Subsection (2) of Section (2) of Section 15
read with Article (4) of the Second Schedule gives exclusive jurisdiction to
the Court of Small Causes to entertain and try a suit for ejectment of a
monthly tenant by his landlord. The plea of the defendant does not determine or
change the forum of trial nor does it oust the jurisdiction of the Court of
Small Causes. In order to decide whether a suit is one of a Small Cause Court
nature or not, one has to refer to the allegations made in the plaint. If the
allegations in the plaint make out a prima facie case which comes within the
ambit of a Small Cause Court, the defence plea will be immaterial. In the
instant case, the suit is in essence a suit by the landlord for ejectment of
his tenant. Once a relationship of landlord and tenant is pleaded by the
plaintiff he cannot be thrown out of the Court on the plea of tenant’s title on
which the landlord’s claim does not depend. In such a case, the question of
title to the disputed premises is not at all relevant. When it is found that
the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff, the defendant is precluded from
setting up his own title and denying the title of the plaintiff in the suit
premises.

Haji
Kasimuddin Mandal Vs. Md. Jalauddin Pramanik, 16 BLD (AD) 228.

Ref:
Dr. Habibur Rahman Vs. Md. Mansur, 25 DLR(HD) 211; Deoki Rai Vs. harakh Narain
Lal, A.I.R.1926 (All) 760; Sakhya Vs. Sadashiv, A.I.R.1930(Bom) 361; Bhan Dat
Vs. Motilal, A.I.R.1932(All)472; Ananti Vs. Channu, JLR 52 All 501= A.I.R.1930
(All)193; Topandsas Vs. M/s. Gorakhram Gokalchand. A.I.R. 1964 (SC) 1348;
Merajuddin Ahmed Vs. Md. Anwarul Islam, 26 DLR(HCD)315; A. Khalek Mia Vs. Maya
Debi, 35 DLR (AD)310; Abdus SattarVs. Mahiuddin, 38 DLR (AD) 97; B. Kunwar Vs.
Ranjit Singh, A.I.R. 1915 (PC) 96=42 l.A. 202—Cited.

Section—15(2)
read with clause (4) of Article I of the Second Schedule

A
suit for possession of an immovable property cannot be filed in a Court of
Small Causes. A suit for possession of an immovable property by evicting a
licencee is to be filed in an ordinary civil Court.

Aziz Ahmed
Sarker and others Vs Sree Sree Laxmi Narayan Jew Thakur, 17BLD (AD) 174

Section—17

Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908

Section—114,
Order XLVII Rule 1

A
Small Cause Court is invested with the jurisdiction to entertain an application
for review of its judgment or order as contemplated under Section 114 Read with
Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code and decide it on merit.

Gajendra
Nath Mondal and others Vs. Mst. Motia Begum & ors, 18 BLD (HCD) 326.

Section—23

It
provides that when the right of a Plaintiff and the relief claimed by him in a
Court of Small Causes depend upon the proof or disproof of the title to
immovable property, which such a Court cannot finally determine. the Court may
at any stage of the proceeding return the Plaint for presentation to Court
having jurisdiction to determine title.

Sheikh Abdur
Rashid Vs. Manik alias Jahangir Hossain, 13 BLD (HCD) 664.

Setion—23

Return of
plaint in a suit involving complicated question of title

When
it appears to a Court of Small Causes that a complicated question of title is
involved in the case before it, which cannot be finally determined in such a
suit, it may return the plaint for presentation before a competent Court.

In
the instant case the defendant is admittedly a tenant under the plaintiff in
respect of the suit premises and as such he has no right to challenge the title
of his landlord in the name of a third party who has not come to claim the suit
property. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the suit involves
any complicated question of title. The learned S.C.C. Judge was perfectly
justified in rejecting the petitioners prayer for return of the plaint.

Faiz Ahmed
Chowdhury Vs. Arif Ahmed, 16 BLD (HCD) 228.

Ref:
22 DLR 841; 11DLR427; 35 DLR (AD)3 10—Cited.

Section—23

Return of
plaints in suits involving questions of title

From
a reading of section 23 of the Act it is clear that the word ‘may’ occurring in
section 23(1) of the Act shows that it is not mandatory. When in a suit heard
by a Small Causes Court, any complicated question of title to immovable
property is involved, it would be a wiser course to act under section 23 of the
Act.

In
the instant case, the plaintiffs were able to prove the relationship of
landlord and tenant between themselves and there being no complicated question
of title involved, the trial Court was wrong in returning the plaint for filing
the same in a proper Court and as such the impugned order is liable to be set
aside.

Rabiul Alam
and another Vs. Sree Bidhan Kumar Deb, Advocate, (HCD) 46.

SCC Suit

The
tenant-appellant did not claim title for himself rather he set up a case that
Binodi Lal never executed any deed of exchange in favour of the plaintiffs. The
High Court Division found that the plaintiff had title on the basis of exchange
deed which was validated by the A.D.C. (Revenue), Dinajpur on 3.2.82 after due
enquiry. The basic question is whether the plaintiff-landlord has been able to
prove that the defendant-appellant was inducted by him on the disputed premises
and whether a relationship of landlord and tenant has been established between
the parties.

In
the instant case from the averments in the written statement of the defendant-
appellant it is palpably clear that the defendant admitted that he used to pay
rents to the plaintiff and the rent was enhanced from time to time. All that
the defendant stated in his pleading was that due to unfavorable condition he
had to pay rents to the landlords and due to ill advise of his senior Advocate
he deposited rent in House Rent Control Case No. 97 of 1979. Apart from the
above averments. the High Court Division found from the circuit. Ext. 4
acknowledging the payment of rent from October to November, 1947. The High
Court Division also compared the signature of the appellant appearing in Ext.5
series with Ext.4 and found those to be of the handwriting of the appellant.
From rent receipts, Ext. 5 series the High Court Division found that the
relationship of landlord and tenant was established between the parties. Ext. F
series, entry of statement of Pourashava clearly show that plaintiff No. 1 was
the owner of the house and the defendant was shown as occupier. The High Court
Division also considered the oral evidence of the parties and also the legal
effect of filing of Rent Control Case No. 97 of 1979 by the defendant and came
to a definite conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant was
established between the plaintiff and the defendant and as such there was no
complicated question of title and relationship of landlord and tenant having
been established decreed the suit.

Bidhan Kumar
Deb Vs Rabiul Alam and others,, 20 BLD (AD) 257.

Small Cause
Courts Act [IX of 1887]

Section 15—

SCC Judge
has no jurisdiction to go into the question of paramount title, and in doing so
to set aside the decree of a civil Court obtained in a suit for specific
performance of contract. The Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to go into
the question of title except — incidentally.

Sudhangsu
Kumar Chowdhury vs Ali Hossain 46 DLR (AD) 151.

Section 15—

A tenant
cannot be permitted during the continuance of the tenancy to resist a suit for
eviction by his landlord without surrendering his possession to his landlord.

Monowara
Begum vs Atiqullah 51 DLR 550.

Section 15, Article 3 Second Schedule—­

High Court
Division fell into an error of law in holding that sec Judge had no
jurisdiction to decide the validity of the order of cancellation of validation
of the power of attorney. Whether the order and then the cancellation thereof
are legally valid or not are questions germane to the subject matter in
controversy and no extraneous to the suit. SCC Judge refused to exercise a
jurisdiction which was lawfully vested in him and the High Court Division also
took an erroneous view of the matter.

Anath Bandhu
Guha & Sons Ltd vs Babu SS Halder 42 DLR (AD) 244.

Sections 15 & 16—

The suit
falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Cause Courts Judge but
erromeously tried by a court other than the sec Judge suffers from no legal
infirmity and the trial cannot be vitiated. Section 23 of the Small Cause
Courts Act negatives the proposition that section 16 of the Act altogether
deprives the civil Court of the jurisdiction conferred by section 9 of the Code
in respect of the small causes suit.

Wahida
Rashid vs Miron Muhammad Zahidul Hoque 43 DLR 115.

Section 15(1) & (4)—

Plaintiff by
a conscious choice filed the suit for eviction of the defendant as an
unauthorised occupant liable to be evicted without notice—his suit is not
maintainable in the Court of Small Causes.

Fazlur
Rahman Shah vs Md Arifur Rahman @ Badsha 48 DLR (AD) 128.

Section 15(2) & Article 4 Second Schedule—

In order to
decide whether a suit is one of a Small Cause Court nature or not, one has to
refer to the allegations made in the plaint. If the allegations make out a
‘prime facie’ case which falls well within the cognizance of a Small Cause
Court, it will be immaterial what the defence is.

Haji
Kasimuddin Mandal being dead his heirs Afroza Bewa and others vs Md Jalaluddin
Pramanik 48 DLR (AD) 205.

Section 17—

A Small
Cause Court is invested with the jurisdiction to entertain an application for
review of its judgment or order as contemplated under section 114 read with
Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Code and decide it on merit.

Gajendra
Nath Mondal and others vs Motia Begum and others 50 DLR 429.

Section 17—

When a SCC
Suit is dismissed for default provision of Order IX, rule 9 of the Code of
Civil Procedure is applicable.

Abdul Waresh
vs Md Abdul Halim and others 53 DLR 608.

Section 17(1)—

When the
party seeking to have the ex parte decree set aside is found willfully
neglectful to comply with provision of section 17 (regarding deposit for the
dues or furnishing security bond) even though the defect was brought to his
notice—Ex parte decree cannot be set aside.

Md Ebadullah
Bepari vs Nikhil Chandra Das 37 DLR (AD) 174.

Sections 17(1)—

Restoration
of SCC suit after it was dismissed for default—Section 17(1) does not indicate
that an application for setting aside an order of dismissal of an sec suit for
default is barred. An order of dismissal of a suit for default is covered by
the expression “any case decided” appearing in section 25 of the Act
which shall not be given a restricted meaning to include only a case decided on
merits. The expression shall also mean case disposed of without a decision on
merits and, as such, the High Court Division can interfere with such orders
under section 25 in order to remove the substantial injustice caused.

Hossainia
Ashraful Ullum Madrasah vs Munsur Ahmed 43 DLR 473.

Section 23—

The SCC
judge was within his competence to decide the question of title incidentally
and that would not be the final determination of title to be barred by res
judicata. The judge has not committed any illegality in coming to a finding as
to the question of title over the suit—holding.

MG Jilani vs
Md Wahed Uddin Sardar 44 DLR 348.

Section 23—

The suit
falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court Judge but
erroneously tried by a court other than the sec Judge suffers from no legal
infirmity and the trial cannot be vitiated. Section 23 of the Small Cause
Courts Act negatives the proposition

that section
16 of the Act altogether deprives the civil Court of the jurisdiction conferred
by section 9 of the Code in respect of the small causes suit.

Wahida
Rashid vs Miron Muhammad Zahidul Hoque 43 DLR 115.

Section 23—

The Court
may refuse to try the sec suit and return the plaint only when the relief
claimed is dependent on the proof or disproof of complicated question of title.
The provision of section 23 does not impose an absolute bar. If the points
involved can be determined by way of dealing with the same incidentally, the
court is left with the discretion to try the suit.

Jogesh
Chandra Pal vs Ershad Hossain Choudhury 43 DLR 170.

Section 23—

The
plaintiff’s title has not been challenged by anybody except the defendant who
is admittedly a tenant in respect of the suit premises. A tenant has no right
to challenge the title of the landlord in the name of a 3rd person who is
absent and not coming to claim the suit property.

Faiz Ahmed
Chowdhury vs Arif Ahmed 49 DLR 89.

Section 23—

When in a
suit heard by a Small Causes Court any complicated question of title to
immovable property is involved it would be a wiser course to return the plaint
to act under section 23 of the Act.

Rabiul Alam
and another vs Sree Bidhan Kumar Deb, Advocate 50 DLR 286.

Section 23—

The SCC
Judge upon considering the suit found that serious question of title has been
involved in the suit—He has illegally decided the question of title finally in
favour of the plaintiff.

Dr Abdul
Gani vs Mujibur Rahman & others 51 DLR 510.

Section 25—

Restoration
of SCC suit after it was dismissed for default—Section 17(1) does not indicate
that an application for setting aside an order of dismissal of an sec suit for
default is barred, An order of dismissal of a suit for default is covered by
the expression “any case decided” appearing in section 25 of the Act
which shall not be given a restricted meaning to include only a case decided on
merits. The expression shall also mean case disposed of without a decision on
merits and, as such, the High Court Division can interfere with such orders
under section 25 in order to remove the substantial injustice caused.

Hossaina
Ashraful Ulum Madrasah vs Munsur Ahmed 43 DLR 473.

Section 25—

Decree by
the Court of Small Causes—Ambit of revision—The propositions laid down in the
judgment of the High Court Division are wide and speculative in that
conclusions of fact reached by the sec judge in the instant case are not
perverse; it is not a case where all matters have not been taken into
consideration; it is not a case of mistrial; there is no mistake in placing the
onus of proof. The question of preventing miscarriage of justice or gross
illegalities does not arise.

Abdur Razzaq
vs Ansar Ali 43 DLR (AD) 212.

Section 25—

The Court’s
jurisdiction in exercise of its power of revision being wider and considering
the long—standing dispute between the parties, the case instead of being
remanded back to the trial Court, be decided by this revisional Court, in the
interest of justice, although consideration of evidence is necessary.

Haragram
Trust Board vs Dr Golam Mortuza Hossain 47 DLR 160.

Section 25—

The
petitioner was found as a tenant under the respondents to whom he had paid rent
and as such he is debarred from setting up a claim of title in himself to
resist the decree for eviction.

Atiqullah
(Md) vs Sanawara Begum and others 50 DLR (AD) 112.

Section 25—

As no error
of law could be pointed out nor could this court find any such error in the
finding of the trial Court that could be said to have vitiated its decision, no
interference by this court is called for.

Jahanara
Hasan and another vs Md Nazrul Islam 50 DLR 65.