Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri K.S. Rathor, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjiv Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and perused the record.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 1.9.2001 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) passed by Special Judge (Narcotics) II, Ghazipur whereby it has allowed landlord’s S.C.C. Revision No. 1 of 2001 after setting aside Trial Court’s judgment dated 30.3.2001. It has decreed the suit filed by respondent-landlord which has resulted in ejectment of petitioner from accommodation in question.

3. The dispute relates to a house situated at Mohalla Chehallumpura, Ghazipur. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 preferred S.C.C. Suit No. 49 of 1981 in the Court of Small Cause, Ghazipur vide plaint dated 5.5.1981 alleging that they are owners of disputed house and petitioner is a tenant therein but has committed default in payment of rent and therefore, she is liable for ejectment.

4. The case set up by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was that Sri Kashi Nath @ Kashi husband of petitioner was a tenant in lower portion of disputed building on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- which was enhanced to Rs. 30/- in 1964. Besides house Tax and water tax, the aforesaid rent was paid by Sri Kashi Nath till May, 1978 when he fell ill and since thereafter rent has not been paid either by Sri Kashi Nath himself when he was alive nor after his death by the petitioner. Written statement was filed by petitioner contesting status of Sri Kashi Nath as tenant though his residence in disputed building was admitted. It was pleaded that Kashi Nath was never a tenant in accommodation and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were never landlords. No rent was ever paid. Sri Kashi Nath was occupying accommodation since beginning as its owner from the time of his father and after death, continued in his own rights. The property in dispute belong to one Kallu Rai Mahadev Ram and Sri Kashi Ram as well as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were the family members hence were residing in their own rights in the capacity of family members of Kallu Rai Mahadev Ram.

5. Besides above and other pleadings, service of notice determining tenancy was also disputed by petitioner. The suit, however, was decreed ex parte on 5.3.1982 whereagainst petitioner came in revision No. 57 of 1982 which was allowed vide judgment dated 13.10.1983 and ex parte order was set aside by remanding the matter to the Trial Court to decide suit again. The Revisional Court’s judgment dated 13.10.1983 was assailed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in writ petition No. 14293 of 1983 but the same was dismissed on 8.9.1998. This Court while dismissing writ petition of landlord clearly observed that Trial Court decreed the suit erroneously and illegally.

6. The petitioner thereafter raised a preliminary objection before Trial Court regarding its competence to proceed with the suit since it involves a title dispute and therefore, according to the petitioner it must have been tried by a regular Court. The petitioner requested the Trial Court to decide this question as a preliminary issue but this request was turned down by Trial Court vide order dated 21.12.1998. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before this Court in Writ petition No. 51880 of 2000 but the same was dismissed. It is thereafter that the Trial Court could proceed to decide suit afresh and vide judgment dated 30.3.2001, dismissed it. It held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and therefore question of decreeing the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment does not arise. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 raised the matter in SCC Revision No. 1 of 2001 which has been allowed by impugned judgment.

7. It is argued that there being a title dispute in respect to the building in question, the suit was beyond the ambit of jurisdiction of Small Cause Court and the impugned judgments are wholly without jurisdiction. The reference is made to Sections 15 and 23 of Provincial Smal