H. N. Kapoor, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendants' revision filed against the decree and judgment dated 20-8-77 of Ilnd Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur in Civil Revision No. 27 of 1976 dismissing the revision and thus confirming the decree and judgment dated 6-1-76 of Judge, Small Cause Court in Original Suit No. 84 of 1967 by which the plaintiff's suit for ejectment from the shop in dispute was decreed and the suit for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 840/- and for mesne profits at the rate of Rs.40/- p. m. were also awarded.
(2.) PLAINTIFF brought a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- p. m. on the allegation that the original defendant Amarnath was the tenant of the shop on the monthly rent of Rs. 40/- p. m. He claimed himself to be the owner of the shop. It was further pleaded that the defendants did not pay rent since 1-4-65 and a notice of demand and termination of tenancy was duly issued to him which was refused. A written statement was filed by Amarnath disputing the title of the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that Amarnath himself had purchased the property from Jagdish Prasad and Suraj Prasad and who was original owner of the shop in 1965 by means of a sale-deed. Amarnath died during the pendency of the suit. He was originally substituted by his widow Smt. Suvarna Anand and one son Rajan. Widow Smt. Suvarna Anand was duly appointed as guardian of Rajan and on the another application when it was found that Amarnath had left two other sons namely Lalit Anand and Pravin Chand they were also allowed to be substituted as defendants on 22-10-75. 6-1-76 was fixed the date for framing issues as also the date for hearing. On that date counsel for the defendants applicants appeared and moved an application for adjournment. Adjournment was refused. Plaintiff's statement was then recorded. Opportunity was offered to cross-examine him but there was no cross-examination. The trial court then decided the case on the basis of the oral testimony of the plaintiff which was corroborated by the various rent receipts Exts. 3 to 11 which were on the record. The revision was then filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act which was rejected. It appears that before the lower revisional court it was argued that the defendant himself had become the owner as he had purchased the property from one of the co-sharers and as such the question of title arose for decision in the case. The revisional court held that it was proved that Amarnath Anand was the tenant of the plaintiff and as such it did not matter if he had subsequently purchased the property from any co-sharer. It was also argued before me that the trial . court was not justified in rejecting the prayer for adjournment. It was argued that no guardian had been appointed for the minors.
(3.) THE same three pleas have been urged before me in this revision. On the point of guardianship it may be stated that a clear prayer for appointing mother as a guardian of the other two minors was made and there was also order of the court on the order-sheet appointing the-mother as a guardian. THEre is thus no force in this contention. As regards rejecting the prayer for adjournment it has not been shown as to how the lower revisional court has committed any error of jurisdiction in deciding this point. THE case was filed in 1967 and was already pending for about 9 years when the date 6-1-76 could be fixed for final hearing. THE trial court did not consider the ground for adjournment sufficiently and as such had full jurisdiction in rejecting the prayer for adjournment. The last point may now be considered. It can, certainly, not be said that the Judge Small Causes* Court ceases to have jurisdiction to decide the matter as soon as the question of title is raised in the written statement. The question of title could be incidentally gone into even by the Judge Small Cause as was held in the case of Ram Dayal Sonor v. Sukh Mongol Kalwar, AIR 1937 Alld. 676. The case has been decided on the basis of the evidence which was on the record. The oral testimony of the plaintiff is amply corroborated by the rent receipts Exts. 3 to 11 on the back of which the signatures of Amarnath Anand have been proved. These rent receipts clearly show that Ram Chandra was the owner of the shop and was realising the rent as such and Amarnath was paying the rent to him. Even if Amarnath Anand was the tenant of the shop prior to its being purchased by Ram Chandra he obviously recognised Ram Chandra as the owner of the shop by paying the rent to him and as such a new contract of tenancy came into existence. During the continuance of the tenancy the defendant was certainly stopped from denying the title of the plaintiffs. He Can neither set up title of a third person nor could set up his own title on the basis of existing purchase from that third person. The lower revisional court therefore, has taken correct view of law and has not committed any jurisdictional error of law in arriving at this conclusion.;