AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. K. Rathi, J.—Heard Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No. 3. Suit No. 231 of 1996 for eviction of the petitioner from the disputed house and for recovery of arrears of rent. The aforesaid suit is still pending in the Court of Judge, Small Cause CourtII, Kanpur Nagar. 2. The petitioner filed written statement denying the title of the opposite party No. 3. He moved an application to return the plaint under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, Annexure 6 to the petition. The aforesaid application was rejected by the trial court on 1911996. Against that order the petitioner preferred Revision No. 73/99, which has also been dismissed on 222001, Annexure 16 of the petition. Aggrieved by it, the present petition has been preferred invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the request that both the orders be quashed and the trial Court be directed to return the plaint under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It is contended that the question of title was raised in the written statement. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Buddhu Mai v. Mahabir Prasad and others, 1988 (2) ARC 260.
I have considered the decision. In this case, the petitioner no doubt has challenged the title, but the same is not to be decided. The only point for decision is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists or not.
Apart from this, the power to return the plaint under Section 23 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is discretionary. Both the Courts below have exercised the discretion against the petitioner.
5.1 do not find any sufficient ground to interfere within the discretionary orders of the Courts below.
The petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed.