S.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the remand order passed in a revision under Section 26 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
(2.) The opposite party No. 2 filed a suit against the petitioner in the court of Munsif Bahraich for recovery of arrears and ejectment from the accommodation. This suit was later on transferred to the court of Small Causes Bahraich. The case of the plaintiff opposite party No. 2 was that the petitioner was the owner of the property in question and he transferred the same in her favour through registered deed of sale and he also took the same property on rent from her by executing a registered rent note dated 11th November, 1971. Thereafter the petitioner committed default in payment of rent which gave right to the petitioner to claim ejectment from him.
(3.) The suit was contested by the petitioner on a number of grounds. The petitioner challenged even the title of opposite party No. 2. He pleaded that he had fallen into bad habits for which the plaintiff's husband Satya Narain was also responsible. It was stated that the companions of the bad company obtained his signatures on several papers and in this manner Satya Narain also obtained his signatures. It was his further case that the property in question was ancestral and he was not the karta of the family and therefore he was not entitled to execute the sale deed in favour of opposite party No. 2. On this basis it was pleaded that opposite party No. 2 neither became the owner of the property nor she became the landlady.;