S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the Respondent, who has appeared through caveat.
(2.) Petitioner tenant is raising all sorts of objections and is not allowing SCC Suit No. 20 of 2005, Pramod Kumar Gupta v. Atul Goel , to proceed for the reason that property in dispute is a shop situate in Meerut, rent of which is only Rs. 50/- per month, which may well be described as a peanut. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, shop in dispute was purchased by Virendm Kumar and Rakesh Kumar, the real brothers of the sole respondent Pramod Kumar Gupta. However afterwards through a family settlement, which was also recognised through a Court decree, property fell in the share of Pramod Kumar Gupta sole respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that just after purchase of the property, Sir V. Kumar and R. Kumar gave notice demanding rent to the petitioner. However, admittedly after decree of the Court through which property in dispute devolved upon the respondent, i.e., decree passed in O.S. No. 102 of 2000, decided on 18.8.2000, apart from respondent, no one else ever asked for rent from the petitioner. In the suit (S.C.C. Suit No. 20 of 2005), petitioner filed application under Section 23, Provincial Small Causes Act for return of plaint for filing before regular Civil Court as according to the plaintiff, complicated questions of title were involved. The trial Court/J.S.C.C., Meerut rejected the application on 29.3.2008. Against the said order, S.C.C. Revision No. 32 of 2008 was filed, which was dismissed by Incharge District, Meerut on 15.4.2008, hence this writ petition.
(3.) According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a complicated question of title in between Promod Kumar Gupta plaintiff-respondent on the one hand and Virendra Kumar and Rakesh Kumar on the other hand is involved, hence plaint must be returned for filing before regular Civil Court. Virendra Kumar and Rakesh Kumar are not, at all, interested to ascertain their title. The Court wonders that how a tenant can compel two persons to fight for landlord-ship so that he may get the benefit and continue in possession. If the version of the tenant is accepted, then he will become a tenant without any landlord, which will be a position better than that of owner because owner is required at least to pay house tax. Para-2 of Supreme Court authority reported in Pawan Kumar Gupta v. Rochiram Nagdeo, AIR 1999 SC 1823 : 1999 SCFBRC 273 , required to be quoted at this juncture, which is as follows , "2. The enviable position to which the tenant of a shop building has ensconced himself as corollary to the judgment of the High Court (under appeal now) is that he need not thenceforth be accountable to any landlord. On the one side when the claim of appellant to be the landlord has been discountenanced by the High Court, at the other side the person whom the tenant proclaimed as his landlord has disclaimed the credential. If the judgment of the High Court remains in force the tenant stands elevated virtually to the status of owner of the suit building. But appellant is not prepared to concede defeat and hence he has come up with this appeal by special leave.";