SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant/tenant and Sri Pramod Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff/landlady.
(2.) This revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 26.05.2017 in S.C.C. Case No.14 of 2012 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Agra whereby Application-118C filed by the revisionist-defendant/tenant under Section 23 of the Act was rejected and the objection of the respondent herein being Paper No.120-C was accordingly disposed of. Submission:-
(3.) Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant/ tenant submits that one Sri Ghurelal was the owner-landlord of the disputed property/ house No.11/116A/6 built on the part of khasra plot No.196, village Chak Haphtam, Tehsil Etmadpur, Agra, of which the revisionist herein was the tenant. The respondent herein was neither owner nor landlord of the aforesaid property but she filed S.C.C. Case No.14 of 2012 for eviction and recovery of rent. Since the dispute involved question of title and as such the plaint was liable to be returned under Section 23 of the Act. However, by the impugned order, the Court below rejected the Application-118C in an arbitrary manner. He, therefore, submits that the Revision deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 26.05.2017 deserves to be set aside. In support of his submission, he relied upon a judgment in the case of Buddhu Mal v. Mahabir Prasad and others, 1988 AWC 1057 S.C. (para-10) and the judgment in the case of Kailash Chandra Gupta v. Subhash Chandra Gupta, 2009 (2) ARC 829 (paras-6).;