- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Original respon dent No. 3 Sardar Kartar Singh, since deceased and survived by legal repre sentatives filed SCC Suit No. 67 of 1988 against Chaturbhuj Das since deceased and survived by petitioners before JSCC, Mathura. It was pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff was the owner landlord of the house in dispute and defendant was tenant thereof at the rate of Rs. 20 per month. It was further al leged that rent had not been paid for a very long time. Relief of eviction on the ground of default and recovery of rent was sought in the plaint. Original defen dant filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and stated that Smt. Attar Kaur mother of the plaintiff had donated the house in dispute to him and there was no question of payment of rent. In para 2 of the plaint, it had been ctated that rent note was also writ ten by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.
(2.) AS defendant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and had claimed his own ownership hence an issue being issue No. 5 was framed to the effect that as to whether suit was liable to be transferred to regular civil Court under Section 23 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (in total 12 is sues were framed on 9-7-1992 ). Issue No. 2 was to the effect that as to whether JSCC had got jurisdiction to decide the suit. Issue No. 2 was decided as preliminary issue by the trial Court on 4-2- 1993. The trial Court held that suit was maintainable before it. Against the said order, Civil Revision No. 80 of 1993 was filed. II Additional District Judge, Mathura through judgment and order dated 25-1-2002, dis missed the revision, hence this writ petition. Before the revisional Court scope of Section 23 PSCC Act was also argued. The revisional Court held that question of title was not involved and for deciding the question of title, only al legations of the plaint are material. In order to decide as to whether Court has got jurisdiction only allega tions of the plaint are to be seen. How ever in order to decide as to whether plaini is liable to be returned for presen tation before competent civil Court under Section 23 Provincial Small Causes Courts. Act, allegations in the written statement are also to be seen. It is not the purpose of Section 23 PCCC Act that whenever defendant states that question of title is involved plaint shall be returned for filing before regular civil Court. It is only when in real sense a complicated question of title is involved, plaint shall be so returned vide Budhu Mal v. Mahabir Prasad, AIR 1988 SC 1772. In the instant case defendant pleaded that the house was orally gifted' donated. Oral gift of immovable property is permissible only under Mus lim Law. No such provision is there under Hindu Law.
(3.) IN any case in order to succeed, plaintiff will have to show that defendant is his tenant. If he fails to prove that defendant is tenant suit filed by him before JSCC for eviction of the defen dant treating him to be the tenant is li able to fail. If plaintiff respondent fails to prove that original defendant was tenant, it will not be necessary for the Court to decide that in what other capacity original defendant was con tinuing in possession. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited following authorities on the interpretation of Section 23 Provincial Small Causes Courts Act: (1)2002 (2) ARC 393 Para 7 (2) 1998 (4) AWC 83 para 728 (3) 2000 (3) AWC 1995 Para 11 (4) 1935 AIR (All) 148 (5) 1926 AIR (Mad) 656 7. In those authorities it was held that complicated question of title was in volved. In the instant case I have found that no complicated question of title is involved. Moreover the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court of Budhu Mai has explained the scope of Section 23 PSCC Act hence there is no need to discuss the above authorities on the said point in detail. 8. It is unfortunat? that the suit is pending for 18 years still trial has not begun in real sense. 9. Writ petition is therefore dis missed. 10. Trial Court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible but in no case later than by 30-9- 2006. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 18-5- 2006 alongwith certified copy of this order. Petition dismissed. .;