SITA RAM Vs. SUBHASH CHAND PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision against the order dated 04.04.2016 passed by learned Small Cause Court/2nd Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in SCC Suit No. 19 of 2012. By the said order, revisionist's application under Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has been rejected.

(2.) It transpires that the respondent (Sri Subhash Chand Pandey) filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the revisionist in the year 2012 with the averment that he is the landlord and revisionist is his tenant. Revisionist, in his written statement, disputed the said claim made by the respondent and asserted his own title over the premises in question. While plaintiff was being cross-examined, defendant (revisionist herein) filed an application under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act stating that he constructed the premises in question, over Nazul Land at his own expenses, therefore, he is the owner of the premises in question. It was further stated that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiff, therefore, he made a prayer to return the plaint under Section 23 of the Act. The said application was rejected by learned court below vide order dated 04.04.2016, which is impugned in the Revision.

(3.) Learned court below has rejected the application of the revisionist by holding that no relief regarding ownership of the property has been sought in the suit and further that rent deed dated 06.06.1993 and notice to quit issued by plaintiff prima-facie indicate that plaintiff is the landlord. The reason assigned for rejecting the application is that the Small Cause Court can decide a suit, where question of title is incidentally involved.