BABU KHAN Vs. CHAHTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 20th January, 1988, passed by the VIth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, rejecting his application under section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter called the 'Act') and declining to return the plaint of Suit No.24 of 1986.

(2.) Before the court below it was contended by the applicant that he was not a tenant of the house in dispute but was owner thereof. According to him, the plaintiff-opposite party was not the owner and landlady of the house. On these contentions, the applicant urged that there was a serious dispute of title of the property in suit and the court should exercise discretion under Section 23 of the Act to direct the return of the plaint.

(3.) From a perusal of the impugned judgment it transpires that, on record, there exists a registered sale-deed executed by the applicant in favour of the opposite party in respect of the house in suit. There exists also a rent note executed by the applicant in favour of the opposite party creating the relationship of 'landlord and tenant' between the opposite party and the applicant. It cannot be disputed that the suit, giving rise to the instant revision, is based on the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant and the grant of relief is not dependent upon the proof or disproof of the title of the opposite party in relation to the house in dispute. As a matter of fact, relief is dependent on the proof of relationship of 'landlord and tenant'. Obviously, if the plaintiff-opposite party fails to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the applicant, her suit will fail. nothing is going to turn upon the proof or disproof of her title in respect of the house in suit. In any case, it is settled law that question of title can also incidently be gone into in a suit instituted by the landlord against his tenant on the basis of contract of tenancy.