ORDER :

1. This misc. appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of CPC has been filed by appellant-defendant therein, assailing the order dated 25.09.2023 passed by Principal District Judge, Shivpuri District-Shivpuri in Regular Civil Appeal No.27A/2021, setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.10.2021 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pohari, District-Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.3-A/2017 and remanding the matter to the trial Court.

2. A few facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal, as narrated therein, are that plaintiff is the legal owner of shop in dispute and a suit has been filed by Shri Ramji Lal Gupta, Ex-officio President of Shri Ramjanaki Mandir Trust (in short ''the Trust'') on behalf of the Trust. It was pleaded that on 01-01-2007 a shop measuring 17x 24 feet from Temple Trust for Rs.1,500/- per month was taken by defendant on rent for the purpose of running sweets business, on the basis of oral agreement with the rust and vacant possession of the shop in dispute was handed over to defendant on the same day. As per oral agreement, the tenancy would commence on the first day of each Gregorian month and conclude on the last day of that month. The monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- was to be paid on the first day of following month, against which a receipt would be issued. It was further agreed that whenever the Trust required the said shop, the defendant would vacate it upon receiving one month's prior notice. The defendant had paid rent to the Trust from 01-01-2007 to 31-12-2013 and from 1^st January, 20014, defendant stopped making rental payments. It was further pleaded that when the trust demanded outstanding rent of Rs.49,500/- defendant persistently avoided payments. Consequently, on 05-10-2016, the Trust issued a legal notice to defendant by registered mail demanding payment of outstanding rent and seeking vacation of the suit shop. Despite receiving the legal notice, defendant neither vacated the disputed shop nor paid the outstanding rent of Rs.54,000/-, therefore, present suit has been filed for eviction of defendant and recovery of outstanding rent.

3. Defendant filed his written statement denying the plaint avermennt. It was pleaded that defendant on the basis of order dated 30-07-2008 passed by Revenue Court (SDO) claimed himself to be the ownership of disputed shop, and denied plaintiff’s title over the suit shop. It was pleaded that suit shop is situated in survey no.427/1 and his name has been recorded as owner of suit shop in the revenue record as he had purchased the suit shop by way of registered sale deed dated 10-11-1986 and since then, he is having possession of shop and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between defendant and plaintiff. Hence, prayed for dismissal of suit.

4. On the basis of pleading of the parties, trial Court framed issues. On the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence, the trial Court allowed the suit of plaintiff partially with a direction that defendant immediately hand over the vacant possession of portion of disputed shop in survey no. 427 to the plaintiff. Being dissatisfied, defendant filed a regular civil appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 25-09-2023 remanded the matter to the trial Court after allowing the application filed by plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Hence, this appeal.

5. It is contended on behalf of appellant that suit shop is situated in survey no. 427/1 and is recorded in the name of appellant as an owner in the revenue record. He had purchased the the suit shop by way of registered sale deed dated 10-11-1986. It is further contended that the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable before the trial Court since no resolution empowering the President was produced regarding prosecution of suit in the name of registered Public Trust. The plaintiff has remained unsuccessful in proving the relationship of landlord and tenant, therefore, no question of grant of decr