Shashi Kant Gupta, J. –

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.11.2010 passed by the Additional District judge, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar upholding the order dated 23.5.2008 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar in Suit No. 158 of 2002 whereby the impleadment application of the petitioner filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows;

3. A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4 against the Respondent No. 5. During the pendency of said suit, an impleadment application was filed by the petitioner alleging that her husband Prayag Narayan, in fact, was the owner of the suit premises and he never sold any part of the property vide sale deed dated 18.1.1972 in favour of Bhagwati Prasad. A suit for cancellation of the sale deed with respect to the disputed premises is already pending before the court below wherein an application for impleading the respondents No. 1 to 4 as defendant is pending.? An impleadment application was filed by the petitioner for impleading him in SCC Suit No. 158 of 2010. The said impleadment application was rejected by the Judge Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar by order dated 23.5.2008. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 23.5.2008, a revision was filed by the petitioner and the said revision was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar by order dated 8.11.2010. Hence the present writ petition.

4. A bare perusal of the record goes to show that the registered sale deed dated 18.11.1972 with respect to the disputed premises was executed by Prayag Narayan, husband of the petitioner, in favour of one Bhagwati Prasad and after the death of Bhagwati Prasad, the property was inherited by his legal heir Raja Ram who sold off? the suit property vide registered sale deed in favour of the respondents No. 1 to 4 on 29.6.2001, as such, on the basis of the said registered sale deed, the respondents No. 1 to 4 became the owner of the aforesaid suit property.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property in fact was never sold off by her husband.? The sale deed dated 18.1.1972 is a forged, fabricated and a void document, and the suit for cancellation of the said sale deed has already been filed by the petitioner which is still pending before the court below wherein the? impleadment application filed to implead the Respondents No. 1 to 4 is still pending.

6. Indisputedly the present Suit No. 158 of 2002 has been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4 against the respondent No. 5 for arrears of rent and ejectment. A suit by a landlord against a tenant is cognizable by Judge, Small Causes Court on limited questions. The Judge , Small Causes Court can not decide the question of title. He has to decide the limited question as to whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. In case the plaintiff has based his rights on the basis of a title, then the Court has to return the plaint as provided under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act,1887. According to the plaintiff the property in dispute was let out to the tenant by him.

7. The only question to be considered by the courts below is as to whether the landlord is entitled to possession on the grounds mentioned in the suit for eviction or not. It has not been disputed that the tenant - respondent no. 1 used to pay rent to the petitioner. Clause (j) of Section 3 of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 ( in short 'the Act') defines " landlord" as a person to whom rent is payable. In the present case when the rent was payable and was, in fact, paid to the plaintiff, no one else was the necessary party. Even the petitioner has not said that the rent was not paid by the tenant to plaintiffs. Issue of ownership could not be decided in the proceedings under the said Act of 1972.

8. Keeping in view the definition of "landlord" i