Section 45 of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882
When the applicant, at the time of applying for any such order as aforesaid, was entitled to the possession of such property, neither he nor any person acting in his behalf shall be deemed, on account of any error, defect or irregularity in the mode of proceeding to obtain possession thereunder, to be a trespasser; but any person aggrieved may bring a suit for the recovery of compensation for any damage which he has sustained by reason of such error, defect or irregularity: when no such damage is proved, the suit shall be dismissed; and when such damage is proved but the amount of the compensation assessed by the Court does not exceed ten rupees, the Court shall award to the plaintiff no more costs than compensation, unless the Judge who tries the case certifies that in his opinion full costs should be awarded to the plaintiff.
Summary
- It protects a rightful applicant who has a legal right to possession from being labeled a trespasser due to any procedural errors or defects.
- It extends this immunity from trespass claims to anyone acting on the applicant's behalf during the possession process.
- It permits an occupant to file a lawsuit for compensation if they suffer actual damage due to a procedural mistake in the eviction.
- It directs the court to dismiss the occupant's compensation suit if no actual damage can be proved.
- It restricts the legal costs awarded to a successful occupant to not exceed their compensation if the damage award is ten rupees or less, unless the trial judge certifies that full costs are justified.
Practical examples
FAQ
1. Does a procedural error make a rightful property owner a trespasser under Section 45 of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882?
No, under Section 45 of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, an applicant entitled to possession will not be deemed a trespasser due to any error, defect, or irregularity in the proceedings.
2. Can an occupant sue for damages caused by a court error under Section 45 of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882?
Yes, under Section 45 of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, an aggrieved occupant can sue the applicant for compensation if they sustained actual damage from the procedural error.
3. What happens if an occupant sues under Section 45 of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 but cannot prove any damages?
Under Section 45 of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, the lawsuit must be dismissed if no actual damage is proved.
4. How are court costs limited under Section 45 of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 for very small damage claims?
Under Section 45 of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, if the proven damages do not exceed ten rupees, the plaintiff receives no more costs than compensation, unless the trial judge certifies otherwise.
Test yourself
Q1.Under Section 45 of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, what is the legal status of an applicant who was entitled to possession but had a procedural error in their eviction case?
Q2.Under Section 45 of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, what must happen to a compensation suit brought by an occupant if no actual damage from a procedural error is proved?
Q3.Under Section 45 of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, if an occupant is awarded compensation of five rupees for a procedural defect, what is the maximum amount of court costs they can receive by default?
Q4.Who has the authority to award full costs to a plaintiff under Section 45 of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 when the compensation is ten rupees or less?