THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3517 of 2011 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 08.06.2011 passed in I.A.No.983 of 2010 in O.S.No.1355 of 2010 on the file of the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby and where under the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the petition filed by the defendant under Section 21 (2) R/W Section 151 CPC. 2 Respondent is the plaintiff. He filed the suit for eviction. Defendant / tenant entered appearance and filed written statement. In the written statement he took the plea that the rent prescribed is only Rs.3,390/- and therefore the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Whereas, plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that the agreed rent is Rs.3,730/- and therefore, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 3 Defendant filed I.A.No.983 of 2010 under Section 21 (2) R/w Section 151 C.P.C seeking the following relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner / defendant prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit for the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, in the interest of justice. Any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 4 The plaintiff filed counter resisting the application. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and hearing the counsel for the petitioner, by order dated 08.06.2011, proceeded to dismiss the said application on the ground that invocation of Section 21 (2) C.P.C. in the given facts and circumstances of the case is only misconceived. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “POINT: Section 21(2) CPC reads as under: No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice” Thus Section 21 (2) of CPC prohibits Appellate or Revisional Courts to allow any objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court unless such objection was taken in the trial court. Nowhere in the said Section it is mentioned that the Court can dismiss the suit on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction to try the same. The petitioner contended in his application that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction as the rent of the suit schedule premises is below Rs.3,500/- per month and only the Rent Controller is vested with the jurisdiction to try the suit. The petitioner wrongly used the word pecuniary jurisdiction instead of pleading that this Court lacks inherent jurisdiction. If the Rent Controller is vested with the jurisdiction to try the suit on the ground of rent or age of the building, this Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to try the same but not pecuniary jurisdiction. The petitioner, if have any objection as to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit, he can well raise the said plea in his written statement and he can seek the Court to decide such issue as a preliminary one under Order XIV Rule (2) CPC. The provision of law under which the application is filed by the petitioner is not at all relevant and under the said provision the suit cannot be dismissed. The application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the application is dismissed. No costs.” 5 Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned in this revision. 6 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rent stipulated for the premises is Rs.3,390/- in which case, the Rent Controller has the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition and not the Civil Court. 7 As can be seen from the order impugned in this revision, the petitioner / defendant filed the petition under Section 21 (2) CPC. Section 21 (2) CPC debars the objection being raised as to competency of the Court with reference to the pecuniary limits in the appellate court or revisional court. In the given facts and circumstances, invocation of Section 21 (2) C.P.C. is wholly misconceived. The trial court has rightly considered the provisions of Section 21 (2) C.P.C. and proceeded to dismiss the application. 8 I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. No order as costs. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move necessary application, if so advised, under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. ------------------------------------------ SRI B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. 14.11.2011 Kvsn