Full Judgment
1. Heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant and Sri Haider Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff opposite parties, at length and in detail.
2. The plaintiff opposite parties instituted in the Court of the Judge, Small Causes, Varanasi original Suit No. 26 of 1983 against the defend ant-revisionist. In the said suit the opposite parties claimed, inter alia, a decree of ejectment against the revisionist. The claim for the decree of ejectment was based on the allegation that the revisionist was the tenant in the disputed house whereof the plaintiff-opposite parties claimed to be the owner-landlords. Denying the title of the plaintjff-opposite parties and asserting himself to be the owner of the disputed house, the defendant revisionist urged the Court below to return the plaint of the suit. In support of the prayer for return of the plaint, the defendant-revisionist placed reliance on the provisions of S. 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, hereinafter called the Act. By means of its judgment and order dt. 7th Sept., 1989, the Court below has declined to accede to the prayer of the defendant-revisionist for return of the plaint. Hence this revision.
3. The contention of Sri R. N. Singh, ; learned counsel for the revisionist, is that the Court below acted illegally in rejecting the prayer of the revisionist for return of the plaint in as much as, the title of the, plaintiff opposite parties qua the house in dispute was denied and the Court below could not examine the question of title of the property' in dispute.
4. The question of grant of relief of ejectment claimed by the plaintiff-opposite parties against the defendant-revisionist depends on the existence of proof of the relationship of landlord and tenant and not on the proof or disproof of the title to the property in dispute. Needless to say, if the plaintiff-opposite parties fail to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the defendant-revisionist, the suit would fail. The Court below has come to the conclusion that in the instant case the controversy to be determined is whetherthere exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the defendant revisionist and the plaintiff opposite parties. This finding has not been demonstrated to be contrary to law in any manner.
5. Mere denial of the title of the plaintiff landlords in relation to the disputed house by the defendant-tenant cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Judge, Small Causes obliging him to direct the return of the plaint under S. 23 of the Act.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is clearly of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist has no force and the impugned order and judgment does not suffer from any such illegality which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under S. 25 of the Act.
7. The revision lacks merit and is, therefore, dismissed. The ad interim order/orders shall stand vacated.
8. Petition dismissed.