K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram in a Small Cause Case No. 81/1988, dated 17-12-1997, whereby the plaint has been returned under Order 7 Rule 10a (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for presentation before the proper Court.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed SCC 81/1988 alleging that he is the owner and landlord of the suit shop by virtue of the sale deed dated 10-2-1984, Ex. A1, which had been executed by Jupudi Ammaji @ Hymasundari who had obtained this properly from her mother-in-law namely Jupudi Sesharatnam through settlement deed dated 31-7-1957, Ex. A2. The respondent who was his tenant in the suit shop did not pay the agreed rent at the rate of Rs. 35. 00 per month for 36 months amounting to Rs. 1,260. 00 and sought for a money decree for the said amount. The respondent-defendant through written statement alleged that he is the tenant of Jupudi Kesavarao in respect of the suit shop for the last 30-40 years and had been paying rent to him. The vendor of the petitioner-plaintiff namely Jupudi Ammaji @ Hymasundari had filed RCC 7/1980 against him for ejectment but it was dismissed. The real owner and landlord of the suit shop is Jupudi Kesavarao or his wife in whose favour a settlement deed in respect of the suit shop was executed, therefore, the plaintiff is not the owner and landlord nor he has attorned tenancy in his favour.

( 3 ) THE trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the petitioner has failed to establish that the respondent had attorned tenancy in his favour.

( 4 ) THE petitioner preferred CRP No. 271/1991 in the High Court. The revision was allowed and the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit dated 4-10-1990 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal according to law. It was also observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file the document dated 16-5-1941 before the trial Court. It was observed that the trial Court has failed to consider the effect of the settlement deed and in case the settlement deed and the sale deed are proved, the petitioner shall automatically become the landlord of the defendant on the same terms and conditions.

( 5 ) ON remand, the petitioner had filed the settlement deed dated 16-5-1941 through which it was alleged that the original owner Jupudi Kesavarao had transferred the suit shop in favour of his wife Jupudi Sesharatnam. He was further examined as P. W. 1. The respondent-defendant was also further examined.

( 6 ) THE trial Court holding that, the claim of the plaintiff is based on his title over the suit shop and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court is ousted under Section 7 (1) of the Small Causes Act, because the question of title is to be decided, returned the plaint to be presented before the proper Court.

( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved by the impugned order, the plaintiff has preferred this revision.

( 8 ) AT the outset, it is to be remarked that the suit shop is situated within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court situated in Bhimavaram of West Godavari District which is outside Telangana area of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Small Causes Court Act, 1330f are not applicable to the case on hand because this Act extends to the whole of the Telangana Area of the State of Andhra Pradesh only and for the remaining parts of the State, the provisions of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 are applicable.

( 9 ) THE case on hand is governed by the provisions of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act 1887 (for short, pscc Act ).

( 10 ) SECTION 15 of the PSCC Act reads as under :"15. Cognizance of suits by Courts of Small Causes :-- (1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the second Schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. (2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that schedule and to the provisions of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document