R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.7.1999 whereby the trial Court refused to entertain and decide the suit and directed plaint to be returned for presentation before a proper Court and the order dated 30.5.2000 whereby the judgment and order passed by trial Court has been affirmed by the Revisional Court and the revision has been dismissed. It appears that respondent No. 7 filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent against the respondent Nos. 3 to 6, one Jai Ram and Smt. Mainwara Wari. The defendants -respondents raised objection to the maintainability of the suit and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain it. It was urged that in the case, intricate question of title was involved, therefore, Judge, Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. The trial Court upheld the objection and directed for returning the plaint for presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction after holding that in the case, intricate questions of title were involved, which could not be decided by the Judge, Small Cause Court, by its judgment and order dated 29.7.1999. Challenging the validity of the said order, petitioner, who is a transferee from respondent No. 7 Shri Ratan Chand Jain filed a revision before the Revisional Court. Revisional Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the material on the record, affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the suit was filed on the basis of the relationship of the landlord and tenant, therefore, even if question of title was involved in the suit same be decided by the Judge, Small Cause Court. The trial Court acted illegally and failed to exercise his jurisdiction in returning the plaint for presentation to another Court.
(2.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled in law that if any suit filed on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant, question of title incidentally arises, the Judge, Small Court should decide the said question. In the present case, according to the findings recorded by the Courts the name of the plaintiff was not even recorded over the property in dispute. He, therefore, without proof of his title over the property in dispute could not succeed. The question of title could be decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Sub -section (1) of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act provides as under: Return of plaints in suits involving questions of title. - -(1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing portion of this Act, when the right of a plaintiff and the relief claimed by him in a Court of Small Causes depend upon the proof or disproof of a title to immovable property or other title which such a Court cannot finally determine, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings return the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. From the above -noted statutory provisions, it is apparent that if in case intricate question of title is involved, the Judge, Small Cause Court is bound to return the plaint. The Revisional Court after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record has also held as under: The plaintiff of the case cannot succeed except on proof or disproof of his title, another suit 68/92 was still pending for title. The name of the plaintiff is not recorded over the property, in dispute, in any record and the basis of title i.e. Patta, was not verified by Tehsil. In these circumstances, there is intricate question of dispute regarding title and to my mind, the learned Judge, Small Causes Courts, was perfectly justified in holding that as intricate question of title of the parties was involved, which cannot be decided summarily, therefore, the plaint was liable to be returned for presentation before proper Court. To my mind, finding is perfectly justified on the facts and circumstances of the present case before me, therefore, no interference is called for. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below to the effect that in case intricate questions of title were involved, the Court below in exercise of powers under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act rightly directed the plaint to be returned for presentation before a proper Court. It was open for the trial (Judge, Small Cause Court) to send the case, in the facts and circumstances stated above to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the question of title. The Courts below, therefore, cannot be said to have exceeded or to have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. ;