R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 5.1.2000 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, for the short the Act, was dismissed by the Judge, Small Causes Court and the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Revisional Court as not maintainable by its judgment and order dated 20.7.2000. It appears that the respondent No. 3 filed a suit against the petitioner for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages on the ground of default. The suit was filed after service of notice of demand and termination of tenancy. The petitioner filed his written statement clearly denying the title of respondent No. 3. Petitioner also filed an application No. 40 - -Certiorari quashing the order dated under Section 23 of the Act praying that in the suit question of title was involved, therefore, plaint of the suit was liable to be returned for presentation before a court of competent jurisdiction as Small Cause Courts had no jurisdiction to decide the suit involving question of title. In the application it was stated that he has been paying rent continuously to Sri Ram Nagina Das and after his death to Smt. Anita Das and that he has not committed default in payment of rent of the premises in question. The trial Court after examining the material on record dismissed the said application by order dated 5.1.2000 holding that the suit was filed on the basis of the relationship between the landlord and tenant and that the petitioner had no right to deny the title of the landlord. Challenging the validity of the said order, a revision was filed by the petitioner before the Revisional Court, which was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 20.7.2000. Hence, the present petition.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, there was no question of payment of rent to respondent No. 3. The Courts below have acted illegally in holding to the contrary and dismissing the application and revision filed by the petitioner. I have gone through the material on record, particularly, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. The Courts below have rightly held that the suit filed on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the question involved in the suit was whether the petitioner had committed default in payment of rent. It has rightly been held that in case respondent No. 3 fails to prove his case that he was the landlord, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The Small Causes Court had the jurisdiction to decide as to whether there existed relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, it cannot be said that the suit was barred by Section 23 of the Small Cause Courts Act and that the plaint was not liable to be returned to the plaintiff. Legally, the tenant has got no right to deny the title of the landlord. The application filed by the petitioner thus was rightly dismissed by the trial Court. The Revisional Court also did not commit any error of law in dismissing the revision and upholding the order passed by the trial Court. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.;