- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 21-12-1987 whereby the Judge, Small Causes Court directed to return the plaint filed by the petitioner to the Competent Court on a regular side in the Civil Court and the order of the Revisional Court dated 25-2-1988 affirming the said order in revision.
(2.) THE petitioner filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against Respondent No. 3 with the allegations that Respondent No. 3 is her tenant in the house in question. He failed to pay rent since December 1982. She sent a notice dated 9-4-1985 demand ing arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy but in spite of service of notice the respondent did not comply with the same. Respondent No. 3 contested the suit and it was alleged that his wife, Smt. Races Begum, has obtained a sale-deed in respect of this house from Amanat Ullah and Faiz Ullah and as such she has become owner of the house. He is residing in the house in question in the capacity of husband of Races Begum and denied that there is any relationship of landlord and tenant. THE petitioner filed a replication alleging that the sale-deed has been obtained by a fraud and misrepresentation. Respondent No. 3 filed an applica tion under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act for return of the plaint on the ground that it involves ques tion of title. The Judge, Small Causes Court allowed the said application on 21-12-1987 and directed for return of the plaint to a competent Court of law. The petitioner preferred a revision against this order and the revision has been dismissed by Respondent No. 1 by impugned order dated 25-2-1988. I have heard Sri Subodh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Gupta, appearing for the respon dent.
(3.) THE controversy is whether the sale-deed obtained by the wife of Respon dent No. 3 is valid. THE petitioner has filed a replication that the sale-deed obtained by the wife of Respondent No. 3 from Amanat Ullah and Faiz Ullah dated 11-4-1983 was obtained by fraud and mis-repre sentation by obtaining thumb impression on blank papers. THE sale-deed on these allegations was voidable and the petitioner could have filed a regular suit challenging the validity of the sale-deed. The Judge, Small Causes Court shall decide the question as to whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and secondly, even if the wife of Respondent No. 3 had purchased the property from some other co-owners of the disputed property, whether the relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end as a whole. These questions can be decided by the Judge, Small Causes Court and for that purpose the plaint shall not be returned for presen tation to the competent Court to decide the question of validity of the sale-deed. The Judge, Small Causes Court was not to consider the validity of the sale-deed ex cept the fact that the execution of the sale-deed was prima fade to be proved by the defendant. In view of the above the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 21-12-1987 and 25-2-1988 are hereby quashed. The Judge, Small Causes Court will decide the suit keeping in view the observations made above and in accordance with law. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .;