- (1.) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 24.8.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Meerut in SCC Revision No. 32 of 2010 upholding the order dated 18.3.2010 passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut in SCC Suit No. 22 of 2008 whereby the application of the petitioner filed under section 23 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act was dismissed. A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the respondent No. 3 against the tenant Satya Prakash Ahluwalia which was registered as Suit No. 22 of 2008. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, the tenant Satya Prakash Ahluwalia expired and he was substituted by his legal heirs. Written statement was filed by the contesting tenants. During the pendency of the suit, art application was filed by the petitioners stating that the suit is barred in view of section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and therefore, it cannot be heard and decided by the Small Causes Court. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court and the revision filed against the said order was also dismissed. Hence the present writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) It is not disputed that the property belongs to Hindu Undivided Family (in short "H.U.F.") and the respondent was the member of the H.U.F. Admittedly, the M/s. Amba Prasad & Co. (H.U.F.) was the landlord of the disputed premises, receiving rent from the petitioner. It appears that in the year 1995, some oral partition took place in the family of the respondent No. 3 with respect to H.U.F. property and as a consequence thereof the disputed premises fell into the share of Sri Rajiv Kishore Jain, respondent No. 3 and the parties had reduced the terms of the partition into writing and information to this effect was given by the respondent No. 3 to the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the said family partition has not been challenged by any of the family member. Moreover, the petitioner has also not claimed the ownership of the said premises. The respondent No. 3 on the basis of the oral family partition is claiming himself to be the sole owner and landlord of the premises. Earlier also the petitioner was the co-owner of the disputed property as being the member of the H.U.F. It has also come on the record that the respondent No. 3 by way of filing his replication has stated that no rent was received from the petitioner by M/s. Amba Prasad Jain & Co. after the partition.
(3.) In the circumstances, the application of the petitioner alleging that the suit is barred in view of section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act is totally misconceived, however, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties in the suit proceedings. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.;