ALGOO SINGH Vs. IIIRD ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIST has been revised. Heard Sri Anoop Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 and Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the opposite parties no.3/1 to 3/4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 07.09.1994 passed by the respondent no.1 in toto and the judgment and decree dated 10.02.1993 passed by the respondent no.2 by which the relief of the petitioner's suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation, has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the landlord of the premises in dispute filed a suit against the respondent no.3 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages before the Court of Judge Small Causes Court, Gonda, which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No.03 of 1989, Algoo Singh vs. Haroon alleging that he was landlord of the premises in dispute and the respondent no.3 was occupying the premises in dispute as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.50/-. The respondent no.3 committed default in the payment of rent and when despite being served with the notice of demand, the respondent no.3 failed to pay the arrears of rent to the petitioner, the petitioner was compelled to file the instant writ petition. The Judge, Small Causes Court, Gonda by his judgment and order dated 10.02.1993 directed the respondent no.3 to vacate the premises in dispute whereas the relief for recovery of arrears of rent was denied. Aggrieved from the judgment and order dated 10.02.1993 two revisions were preferred by the petitioner as well as by the respondent no.3. Revision No.46 of 1993 was filed by the petitioner and Revision No.35 of 1993 was filed by the respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 by his order dated 07.09.1994 allowed the revision preferred by the respondent no.3 and dismissed the petitioner's revision holding that despite the dispute of title was involved in the present case and as such the Trial Court has erred in deciding the same. Both the plaints were liable to be returned under Section 23 of the Small Cause Courts Act for being presented before the competent court and accordingly after setting aside the judgment and decree of the Judge Small Causes Court, Gonda the suit for ejectment was directed to return the under Section 23 of Small Cause Courts Act. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the judgment of Judge Small Causes Court shows that no finding has been recorded in the said judgment that the respondent no.3 was in occupation of the premises in dispute. Unless the relationship of the landlord and the tenant is proved to subjudice, the suit cannot be said to be a nature of cognizable by Judge Small Causes Court. The order passed by the respondent no.1 does not suffer from any error of law warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent no.1 in the impugned order has been recorded a categorical findings. In view of the above, the writ petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.