The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Small Causes Court should exercise its discretion under Section 23 of the Act to return the plaint for presentation before the appropriate court in cases involving intricate questions of title.

( 1 ) THE controversy canvassed in the present writ petition lies in very narrow compass. It is an admitted fact that one Brij Rani Kakkar was owner/landlady of house No. 3 situate in Mohalla katra Abdul Gani in town Fatehpur. The petitioner undoubtedly was earlier her tenant in a portion of the said house at a monthly rent of Re. 165. Smt. Brij Rani Kakkar, the original owner landlady sold the house in question in favour of Smt. Prema Awasthi-respondent No. 3 through a registered sale deed dated 15. 12. 1988. Subsequently, she filed a S. C. C. Suit No. 3 of 1991 against the present petitioner for his eviction from the tenanted accommodation on the ground that he has committed default in payment of arrears of rent in spite of service of the notice of demand and quit. Besides the relief of ejectment, arrears of rent and pendente lite mesne profits have also been claimed. The defendant-petitioner denied the title of the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 as well as relationship of landlady and tenant, primarily on the ground that the original owner-landlady Smt. Brij Rani Kakkar had executed an agreement for sale dated 13. 12. 1976 in his favour and pursuant to the said agreement, he is in occupation of the tenanted portion in his own right. The defendant-petitioner also took the plea that he has instituted a Suit No. 212 of 1989 for the relief of specific performance of the agreement against Smt. Brij Rani Kakkar as well as the plaintiff-respondent No. 3-Smt. Prema Awasthi. and since a serious and intricate question of title has to be investigated to decide the rights of the parties, the plaint of the suit for ejectment is liable to be returned for presentation before competent regular Court in view of the provisions of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The objection of the petitioner did not find favour with the Judge, Small Causes court/ trial court who refused to return the plaint by order dated 5. 2. 1997. The petitioner filed a revision application but was not met with any better luck as it was dismissed on 21. 8. 1999.

( 2 ) IN the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the defendant-petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the trial court as well as revisional court dated 5. 2. 1997, Annexure-2, and dated 21. 8. 1999. Annexure-1 respectively to the writ petition primarily on the ground that since complicated and intricate question of title is required to be decided, the only option left with the Small Causes Court was to return the plaint under section 23 of the Act so that question could be decided on the regular side.

( 3 ) COUNTER and rejoinder- affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri S. P. A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. S. Kushwaha appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent No. 3-Smt. Prema Awasthi. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that since only a legal controversy has been raised in the present writ petition, it should be decided finally at this stage.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the landlady-respondent No. 3 supported the orders passed by the Courts below and urged that they have rightly interpreted the provisions of Section 23 of the Act and since the dispute raised by the defendant-petitioner does not involve any question of title, the plaint was not required to be returned. It was urged that the parties would swim or sink on the proof or disproof of the relationship of landlady and tenant between them and the suit which is still pending be directed to be disposed of at an early date. Learned counsel for the petitioner repelled this submission and maintained that an intricate question about the title of the parties is involved in the suit and since the Judge Small Causes Court is not competent to decide it finally, in all fairness and with a view to do complete justice between the parties, a direction be issued to return the plaint for presentation b