Amir Jahan vs District Judge,Rampur and Others

Sudhir Narain, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21121987 whereby the Judge, Small Causes Court directed to return the plaint filed by the petitioner to the Competent Court on a regular side in the Civil Court and the order of the Revisional Court dated 2521988 affirming the said order in revision.

The petitioner filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against Respondent No. 3 with the allegations that Respondent No. 3 is her tenant in the house in question. He failed to pay rent since December 1982. She sent a notice dated�941985 demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy but in spite of service of notice the respondent did not comply with the same. Respondent No. 3 contested the suit and it was alleged that his wife, Smt. Races Begum, has obtained a saledeed in respect of this house from Amanat Ullah and Faiz Ullah and as such she has become owner of the house. He is residing in the house in question in the capacity of husband of Races Begum and denied that there is any relationship of landlord and tenant. The petitioner filed a replication alleging that the saledeed has been obtained by a fraud and misrepresentation.

Respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act for return of the plaint on the ground that it involves question of title. The Judge, Small Causes Court allowed the said application on 21121987 and directed for return of the plaint to a competent Court of law. The petitioner preferred a revision against this order and the revision has been dismissed by Respondent No. 1 by impugned order dated 2521988.

I have heard Sri Subodh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Gupta, appearing for the respondent.

The controversy is whether the saledeed obtained by the wife of Respondent No. 3 is valid. The petitioner has filed a replication that the saledeed obtained by the wife of Respondent No. 3 from Amanat Ullah and Faiz Ullah dated 1141983 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation by obtaining thumb impression on blank papers. The saledeed on these allegations was voidable and the petitioner could have filed a regular suit challenging the validity of the saledeed.

The Judge, Small Causes Court shall decide the question as to whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and secondly, even if the wife of Respondent No. 3 had purchased the property from some other coowners of the disputed property, whether the relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end as a whole. These questions can be decided by the Judge, Small Causes Court and for that purpose the plaint shall not be returned for presentation to the competent Court to decide the question of validity of the saledeed. The Judge, Small Causes Court was not to consider the validity of the saledeed except the fact that the execution of the saledeed was prima fade to be proved by the defendant.

In view of the above the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 21121987 and 2521988 are hereby quashed. The Judge, Small Causes Court will decide the suit keeping in view the observations made above and in accordance with law. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.