AAJ PRAKASHAN LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. VINEET SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the tenant. Proceedings for his eviction have been initiated under the provisions of the Small Causes Court Act being SCC Suit No. 45 of 2007. In the said suit the tenant made an application under Sec. 23 of the Small Causes Court Act with the allegation that the dispute of title is involved and, therefore, the plaint be returned for presentation before the competent Court. This application being Paper No. 30-C was objected by the landlord and it was stated that all along the tenant has been recognising the plaintiff as the landlord of the premises. The tenant was inducted into the premises by the landlord, the rent of the premises was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff all along. Therefore, it has been held that the application under Sec. 23 of the Small Causes Court Act was totally misplaced. Challenging the aforesaid order the counsel for the tenant contends that the term of the sub lease has expired and, therefore, the landlord has ceased to have any right over the premises. He therefore, submits that the dispute of title was involved and the Court is not justified in rejecting the application.

(2.) In the opinion of the Court the contention raised on behalf of the revisionist is totally misplaced. Merely because of the expiry of the sub lease in favour of the landlord will not in any way dilute the relationship between the petitioner tenant and the landlord and, therefore, the order passed by the Court below is strictly in accordance with law.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner reference has been made to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Budhu Mal Vs. Mahabir Prasad and others, reported in 1988 SCFBRC 427 : 1988 (2) ARC 260 : 1988 AWC, 1052 , for the proposition that if dispute of title is involved the suit is to be returned for presentation under Sec. 23 of the Small Causes Courts Act. There can be no dispute qua the proposition laid down in the said judgment. However in the facts of the present case there exists no dispute of title. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Pomal Kanji Govindji and others etc. Vs. Vrajlal Karsandas Purohit and others etc. reported in 1989 (1) Alld. Rent Cases, 41 , wherein the issue pertaining to the right of the mortgagor after the redemption of the mortgagee has been considered (Ref. Paragraph 40) and it has been held that after redemption of the mortgage the mortgagor has no right to evict the person. The said judgment has no application in the facts of the present case inasmuch as no order cancelling the sub lease in favour of the landlord has been passed or any action has been taken for his dispossession from the property.