U.C. Srivatava, J. - (1.) The writ petition has been filed by the tenant against the judgment passed by two Courts below. The landlord opposite party after giving him a notice for ejectment, filed a suit in respect of house which was in his tenancy in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Sitapur. The petitioner contested the suit alleging that the opposite party was not the owner of the bouse but himself was its owner in possession. The Opposite Party No. 3 claimed himself to be its owner having purchased the same from one Virendra Kumar Saxena who was the adopted son of Musammat Brijrani who executed a will in his favour. It was further alleged that Smt. Laraiti Devi mother of Brij Rani had executed a gift deed in favour of Smt. Brij Rani in the year 1939 which was not placed on record. The Trial Court decreed the suit. Where after the tenant filed a revision which was dismissed. After dismissal of revision, the instant writ petition has been filed.
(2.) On behalf of the petitioner the first contention was that the Courts below had no jurisdiction to try the suit as it involved the question of title and the Trial Court wrongly rejected this plea of the petitioner and the Lower Appellate Court also rejected the same which are not warranted by law. The Trial Court framed issue No. 1 on the point of jurisdiction. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 framed by the Trial Court are quoted below:- 1. Does the suit involve question of title, if so, has this Court no jurisdiction to try this suit ? 2. Does relation of landlord and tenant exists in between the parties ? The Trial Court came to the conclusion that there was overwhelming evidence to have that the petitioner had been residing in the house as tenant and the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. The Revisional Court observed that issue No. 1 was not properly decided as the case involved complicated questions of fact and law as three sale deeds required to be proved. It was, therefore, a fit case which was to be tried by the regular Civil Court but the judgment of the Trial Court would not be quashed on this ground alone since the Revisional Court of the opinion that no injustice has been caused to any party. Before the Judge Small Causes Court the question of title was raised by the defendant-petitioner but once the Trial Court came to conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties, it was no longer necessary for it to decide the question of title. The Revisional Court may not be correct but the Revisional Court having affirmed the finding recorded by the Trial Court, it cannot be said that it had no jurisdiction to decide the case or the decree so passed by it is without jurisdiction. Although it has not been asserted on affidavit that no other questions also the revision application was argued before the Revisional Court but in the writ petition it has not been asserted that certain other pleas were also urged but the Revisional Court failed to decide the same. In this view of the matter, it cannot be accepted that the finding of Trial Court on issue Nos. 3 and 4 was also challenged and the Revisional Court omitted to consider it. Learned Counsel could not point out as to how the finding on these issues is not correct and call for interference in writ jurisdiction. There appears to be no force in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. But the tenant is granted four months' time to vacate the premises from the date he gives written undertaking before the Trial Court within a period of three weeks that he will hand over vacant possession to the landlord before the expiry of aforesaid period of four months which will start from expiry of three weeks from the date of this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;