SHANTI DEVI Vs. ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiffs have prayed for quashing the Order dated 25.7.2001, passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) in S.C.C. Revision No. 100 of 1999, Suraj Pal Singh v, Smt. Shanti Devi and others, whereby the respondent No. 1 allowed the revision with costs and set aside the Order dated 22.4,1999 passed by the' Judge Small Causes, Agra in S.C.C. Suit No. 551 of 1993.

(2.) The facts, in nutshell, for the decision of this petition are that the petitioners filed a suit in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Agra, for eviction of the tenant-respondent No. 2 from the shop in dispute. The suit was filed with the allegations that late Vijayender Pal Singh, who was husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3, was allotted a plot by the Gaon Sabha. After obtaining possession, he built shops thereon. Late Vijayender Pal Singh opened a clinic in one of the shops and adjoining shop was let out to Suraj Pal Singh on a monthly rent of Rs. 250. After the death of late Vijayender Pal Singh, the plaintiffs being his legal heirs became owners of the shop. The tenant-respondent defaulted in payment of rent w.e.f, 1.1.1984, and he was, therefore, served with a notice terminating the tenancy. The suit was filed for vacating the shop in dispute.

(3.) The tenant-respondent No. 2 filed written statement and contested the suit on the grounds, inter alia, that he was never inducted as tenant In the disputed shop by the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between late Vijayender Pal Singh and Suraj Pal Singh, The defendant-tenant asserted that the shop in question as well as adjoining shops were constructed by the joint fund of the defendant and his father (late Sobaran Singh) and both were doing the profession of 'vaidya'. The defendant after the death of his father and during his lifetime also was using the shop in dispute and was in possession as owner thereof. The relationship of tenant and landlord never existed between the parties. It was also pleaded that since the question of title was involved; in the matter, the Judge, Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and plaint had to be returned under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act (for short as the 'Act') to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the question of title.