In eviction suits, the landlord-tenant relationship is paramount, and the presence of co-owners is not necessary for adjudication.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner filed a suit for recovery of rent, possession and mense profit against respondent no. 2 before Small Cause Courts, stating that he is the owner of the scheduled property and respondent no. 2 is his tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 120/-. It was further stated that respondent no. 2 has not paid the rent since 01.01.1986; a notice for termination of tenancy was given to him on 02.05.2017, which was served upon him on 06.05.2017; however, he has not handed over vacant possession of the scheduled property to him nor paid the rent.

2. Respondent no. 2 in his written statement stated that one Abdul Sakur was the original tenant and after his death, Abdul Salam became tenant, who died in the year 2012 and respondent no. 2 is residing in the premises in question as brother of Abdul Salam and he is not a tenant of the plaintiff.

3. In the said suit, respondent no. 1 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC with the contention that she is the sole owner of the property in question, therefore, she needs to be impleaded. Petitioner filed objection to the said application, contending that there exists relationship of landlord – tenant between him and respondent no. 2, and respondent no. 1 has remedy to file separate suit, for determination of her right.

4. Learned trial court rejected the impleadment application moved by respondent no. 1 vide order dated 02.03.2019. Feeling aggrieved, respondent no. 1 filed SCC Revision No. 05 of 2019 under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (for short ‘the Act’), which was allowed by learned 6th Additional District Judge, Dehradun vide judgment dated 06.01.2022 and plaintiff in the suit (petitioner herein) was directed to implead respondent no. 1, as party to the suit. Thus, feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of provision contained in Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, dispute regarding title cannot be decided by a Small Cause Court and effect of the impugned judgment is that, a suit for eviction filed against a tenant has been converted into a title suit. Section 23 of the Act reads as under:-

“23. Return of plaints in suits involving questions of title.

(1)Notwithstanding anything in the forgoing portion of this Act, when the right of a plaintiff and the relief claimed by him in a Court of Small Causes depend upon the proof or disproof of a title to immovable property or other title which such a Court cannot finally determine, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings return the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title.

(2)When a Court returns a plaint under sub-section (1), it shall comply with the provisions of the second paragraph of section 57 of the [Code of Civil Procedure (14 of 1882)] and make such order with respect to costs as it deems just, and the Court shall, for the purposes of the [Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877)] be deemed to have been unable to entertain the suit by reason of a cause of a nature like to that of defect of jurisdiction.”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 1 is trying to convert a eviction suit into a title dispute and in view of the Statutory bar contained in Section 23 of the Act, such a dispute cannot be decided by a Small Cause Court. He relies upon judgment rendered by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Noor Ahmad v. Qazi Zafar Ahmad & another, (2021) 2 ARC 588, Para no. 7 of the said judgment is reproduced below:-

“7. It is against the settled principle governing disposition of rent suits, that the cause of action cannot b