The court of Small Causes has jurisdiction to go into the question of title incidentally. If the court finds that without an elaborate enquiry into the question of title, the issue regarding existence of relationship of landlord and tenant cannot conveniently be decided, it has the power not to proceed with the case further and order its return under Section 23 of the Small Causes Court Act.

( 1 ) HEARD Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

( 2 ) THE landlady-respondent No. 3 filed suit for ejectment against the petitioner on the grounds of default in payment of rent and of denial of title. The suit was contested by the petitioner, inter alia, on a number of grounds, the main ground being that the original landlady Fakia Bibi had left India for Pakistan in the year 1947 and she died there in the year 1953, so the property in question became Enemy Property and the same has vested in Central Government/custodian. The trial court decreed the suit by the judgment dated 26. 4. 93 holding that the petitioner was liable to eviction as he failed to clear off arrears of rent despite service of notice of demand and that the petitioner was also guilty of disclaiming the title of the landlady. The petitioner preferred revision against the said judgment and the same was allowed by the revisional court by the order dated 20. 8. 97 and case was remanded to the trial court with the direction to decide the suit afresh in the light of observations made by the revisional court in its judgment. After the remand, on an application being moved, the custodian-respondent No. 4 was allowed to be impleaded in the case and written statement on his behalf was also filed wherein it was stated that under Section 8 of the Enemy Property Act, the property has vested in the Central Government. After the remand, the trial court did not proceed to record any further evidence and by the judgment dated 8. 9. 98 ordered the return of suit to be presented before the proper court in exercise of powers under Section 23 of the Small Causes Court Act. Aggrieved by this order, the landlady filed revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act and the same has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 28. 7. 99.

( 3 ) SHRI R. N. Singh. who appears for the contesting respondent No. 3 stated that this writ petition may be disposed of at the admission stage itself and he does not Intend to file counter-affidavit, accordingly writ petition is disposed of by this Judgment.

( 4 ) DR. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions before the Court. Firstly, that the order of the trial court dated 8. 9. 98 whereby suit was returned for presentation before the proper court was perfectly valid as intricate question of title was involved in the case which the court of Small Causes was not competent to decide and the revisional court has unjustifiably interfered in the discretion of the trial court. Secondly, it was urged that in any view of the matter if the revisional court was of the opinion that the trial courts order returning the suit for presentation before the proper court was unsustainable, it-ought to have remanded the case to the trial court for a decision on merits but the revisional court itself acted as a trial court and proceeded to record its own findings after appraisal of evidence and thus it exceeded its jurisdiction.

( 5 ) AS far as the first ground of attack is concerned, this Court finds no merits in it. A bare perusal of Section 23 of the Small Causes Court Act makes it clear that in order to attract the same, the court has to come to the conclusion that the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit depends upon proof or disproof of title to the immovable property involved, which such Court cannot finally adjudicate because the proceedings before the Small Causes Court are of summary nature and for determining the question of title, an elaborate enquiry is required which has to be left to be held by a competent court having jurisdiction for determining the said question. It will not be a correct proposition of law to say that the Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction at all to go into the question of title, therefore, whenever the title of the plaintiff is disputed, the Judge Small causes Court is bound to return suit for pre