The Small Cause Court may decide incidental title issues in landlord-tenant disputes, but it is not obligated to refer cases to regular courts unless substantial evidence of title is presented.

1. Heard Shri Yusuf Saifi, learned counsel appearing under the authority of Shri Aftab Ahmad learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Shyam Mohan learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant SCC revision has been preferred by the revisionist-defendant against the order dated 26.07.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Balrampur (acting as Judge Small Causes) in SCC Suit No.3/2001/1995 whereby an application under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act 1887 (hereinafter referred to as PSCC) moved by the revisionist bearing paper No.170 Ga was rejected.

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant revision, brief facts are being noticed hereinafter.

4. Smt. Sampata Devi, the original plaintiff instituted SCC Suit No.3/2001/1995 against the revisionist namely Jugeshwar Prasad. It was stated in the plaint that Smt. Sampata Devi was the owner landlord of house No.135, situate in Puraniya Talab, District Balrampur. The property had been let out to the defendant Jugeshwar Prasad on a monthly rent of Rs.750/-. Since the defendant defaulted in the payment of rent since June 1995, hence a composite notice for demand an ejectment under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued by Smt. Sampata Devi through counsel dated 02.07.1995. Since the defendant did not comply with the notice, hence the SCC suit seeking a decree of arrears of rent and ejectment as well as damages for wrongful use an occupation was filed by Smt. Sampata Devi.

5. Jugeshwar Prasad, the original defendant filed his written statement and contested the suit on the ground that the property in question was ancestral. It belonged to Mahadev, who is the father of the defendant-revisionist and husband of Smt. Sampata Devi. It was stated that after the death of Mahadev, the property being ancestral the defendant himself had a right in the property alongwith his two other brothers, namely, Bhagwan Prasad and Hanuman Prasad. It was also urged that there was no relationship of land-lord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and this was also made known to the plaintiff when the defendant sent its reply dated 06.08.1995 in reply to the notice dated 02.07.1995 issued by the plaintiff under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

6. During pendency of the suit several subsequent events took place as a consequence amendment were made in the plaint and in reply thereto, the defendant filed an additional written statement in response to the amended plea.

7. One important stage in the suit arrived when the original plaintiff, namely, Smt. Sampata Devi expired, upon her death, the other brother of the defendant, namely, Hanuman Prasad claimed right of substitution in place of Smt. Sampata Devi on the basis of a Will said to have been executed by Smt. Sampata Devi on 30.11.1979 in his favour which was brought on record and marked as exhibit-26 Ka. This matter came to be contested as another person, namely, Santosh Chandra Gupta (son of the original defendant, namely, Jugeshwar Prasad) who also claimed right on the property stating that Smt. Sampata (grand mother of Santosh Chandra Gupta) had executed an unregistered Will dated 03.11.1996 in his favour. The trial court found that Hanuman Prasad was claiming on the basis of registered Will and it found favour with the trial court and his name was substituted. This came to be challenged by Santosh Chandra Gupta in a revision preferred before this Court bearing no.264 of 2003 a