The Small Causes Court has the discretion to return a plaint in cases where the right of the plaintiff and the relief claimed depend upon the proof or disproof of a title to immovable property and such question cannot be finally determined by the court.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings in suit No. 533 of 1975 filed in the court of Judge Small Causes, Meerut, Harvinder Singh Duggal v. Brahm Singh.

( 2 ) THE property in dispute is house No. 165, now number, 290/291 and recently numbered as 31, Shivlok, Kankherkhera, Meerut. The petitioner is the tenant, Harvinder Singh Duggal, respondent 3 is the landlord. The suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages at the rate of Rs. 125/- per mensem was filed by the respondent 3 against the petitioner. The case set up in the plaint was that the petitioner was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 125/- per mensem. He defaulted in the payment of rent since 1-4-1974. He has consequently served with a notice of demand and ejectment dt. 18th Dec. 1974, which was served upon him on 26-12-1974. In spite of the service of notice of demand the petitioner did not comply with the said notice and hence the suit was filed for the reliefs sought in the plaint.

( 3 ) THE petitioner in defence set up a case that no relationship of landlord and tenant was established between him and respondent 3.

( 4 ) THE Judge Small Causes Court after considering all the evidence on record came to the conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant was clearly established between the petitioner and respondent 3. It was also found that the petitioner was a defaulter and consequently, the suit was decreed.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the said decision, a revision was filed in the court of the District Judge, Meerut, under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revision came up for hearing before the IVth Additional District Judge, Meerut who by his judgement dt. Jan 24, 1984 dismissed the revision. The revisional court also examined the matter again in detail on the question whether relationship of landlord and tenant was established between the parties or not and held that such a relationship did exist. The petitioner has now challenged the judgements dt. 10th Mar. 1978 and 24th Jan. 1984 by means of the present writ petition.

( 6 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contested that the case involved a disputed question of title and as such the courts below have acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction in not returning the plaint to be presented to a court having jurisdiction to determine the title and hence the judgements passed by both the courts below are vitiated in law.

( 7 ) IN the instant case, it is not disputed that by a sale deed dt. 18th Oct. 1962 the disputed accommodation was purchased by respondent 3 landlord from one Tehal Ram and the petitioner. The sale deed is exhibit 3 on the record. A lease deed was executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent 3 on 18th July, 1967, which is exhibit 4 on record, by which the petitioner took the property on rent from respondent 3 at the rate of Rs. 125/- per mensem. On the record there are also counter-foils exhibits 7 to 29, which have been signed by the petitioner himself, which clearly shows payment of rent by the petitioner to respondent 3. From these documents, a relationship of landlord and tenant is clearly established.

( 8 ) IN defence, however, the petitioner sought to rely on a subsequent contract alleged to have been entered between plaintiff respondent 3 and the petitioner, by virtue of which it is further alleged that respondent 3 has agreed to sell the property to the petitioner. It is further alleged that a suit No. 20 of 1975 has been filed by the petitioner in the court of First Civil Judge Meerut for specific performance of the said Contract, and the suit is still pending.

( 9 ) IN the present suit only relevant question which was to be examined by the courts below was as to whether a relationship of landlord and tenant was established. Both the courts below have found that such a relationship did exist. The question as to whe