RAJIV CHADDHA Vs. AMARJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. These two revisions can be disposed of, at the admission stage, through a common judgment.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist has been heard in both the revisions.

(3.) THE suit was contested on variety of grounds. It was denied that the plaintiff opposite-party is owner of the disputed house. On the other hand, the plea was that Avas Vikas Parishad is the owner of the house because no sale-deed was executed by Avas Vikas Parishad in favour of the plaintiff opposite- party. Consequently it was pleaded that Avas Vikas Parishad is a necessary party. Another consequential plea was that since the question of title is involved, the suit was not cognizable to Small Cause Court ; rather the plaint should have been returned for presentation before the competent civil court under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act. THE relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by the revisionist. It was pleaded that the revisionist was licensee of the plaintiff opposite-party and was taking care of the property of the opposite party, who resided essentially at Delhi. Service of notice was not disputed. Notice was replied.