SHRIMATI DEVI Vs. IVTH A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-landlord, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order passed by the revisional court whereby the revisional court exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and directed return of the plaint under Section 23 of the Act to the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate court (on the regular side).

(2.) The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant-tenant for arrears of rent and ejectment of the tenant. The tenant contested the aforesaid suit and alleged that the petitioner was neither owner nor there was any relationship of landlord and tenant and it was further alleged that the amount said to have paid by the defendant-tenant was in fact loan taken by Smt. Chunia, the mother of defendant, and since there does not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant, the suit is not cognizable before the Judge Small Clause Court. The plaint was returned for presentation to the appropriate court.

(3.) The trial court framed issues arising out of aforesaid controversy and decided the matter against the tenant holding that merely because the tenant raises a dispute or denied the title in the written statement, it is not sufficient to oust the decision of the Court, namely the Small Cause Court, and therefore the trial court after going into the material on the record arrived at the conclusion and recorded a finding that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant and that the tenant has committed default thus made himself liable for ejectment. The trial court, therefore, decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby the tenant-respondent preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Act. The revisional court has entered into evidence on the record and arrived at a conclusion that since there is denial of title and relationship of landlord and tenant, the trial court has committed an error in entertaining the suit. The revision, therefore, was allowed. The matter was remanded back to the trial court with a direction to return the plaint under Section 23 of the Act.