Smt. Sonia Chawla And Another Mohd. Shafiq v. Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi, Abhishek

Mishra, Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Court No. - 6 I.A. No.1 of 2025 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the revision.

2. The cause shown is sufficient.

3. The application is allowed.

4. The delay is condoned. Order On Revision

5. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists.

6. An affidavit of service has been filed to the effect that the notice was served upon the respondent, however, he has refused to accept the notice. A copy of the petition was also sent through whats-app. However, no one is present on behalf of the respondent. In view of the affidavit of service, the notice is deemed to be served.

7. The present petition has been filed by the revisionist challenging an order dated 31.05.2025, whereby the order has been passed accepting the Application No.C-22 under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (herein-after known as the 'SCC Act') and the matter 2 SCCRD No. 11 of 2025 was relegated to be agitated before the competent court/Waqf Tribunal.

8. The facts in brief are that the revisionists are owners in possession of the shop under tenancy and had purchased the said property vide registered lease deed dated 07.04.1994. It is stated that the said property was leased out to the respondent in the year 2013 on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- per month, which was subsequently increased to Rs.8,000/-. It is stated that as the respondent stopped paying the rent, a notice was served upon the respondent to determine the tenancy and for arrears of rent. It is stated that the respondent instituted a suit No.1116 of 2017, in which a prayer was made that the plaintiff to the said suit may not be evicted except in accordance with law.

9. Perusal of the plaint on record reveals that the plaintiff to the said suit had admitted that he was a tenant of the defendant, who is a revisionist before this Court. After the said suit was filed, the revisionist herein preferred a SCC Suit No.6 of 2018 seeking arrears of rent and ejectment. In the meanwhile, the respondent, who is the tenant preferred a Suit No.68 of 2018 before the Waqf Tribunal seeking cancellation of lease in favour of the revisionist.

10. It transpires from the record that the revisionist had purchased the lease hold rights vide registered lease deed dated 07.04.1994 with the right to create a sub lease, on which the respondent was inducted as a tenant. The respondent on the strength of suit No.68 of 2018, wherein he had prayed for cancellation of the main lease granted in favour of the revisionist, filed an application under Section 23 of the SCC Act indicating that there was a title dispute and as such, the plaint ought to be returned. The said application was resisted by the revisionist. However, the impugned order came to be passed relegating the parties to approach the competent court/Waqf Tribunal.

11. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that once the factum of the tenancy was accepted in the suit filed by the respondent, an application under Section 23 of the Act ought not to have been entertained.

12. Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 is quoted 3 SCCRD No. 11 of 2025 herein-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)] [Now see the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Sch.I, Order 7, Rule 10.] 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)] [Now see the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)], 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."

13. On a plain reading of the said provision, it is clear that the power under Section 23 of the SCC Act can be exercised only when the relief claimed by the plaintiff depends on the proof or disproof of a title to immovable property, which cannot be determined finally by the JSC Court, the Court can return the plaint.

14. In the present case, the relationship of the land lord and tenant was established and was also admitted by the respondent, who is the defendant to the suit. Thus, there was no occasion for the court to have passed the order under Section 23 of the SCC Act as has been done by means of the impugned judgement.

15. Finding the exercise of power under Section 23 of the Act is prima facie bad in law, in view of the admission of the respondent, the same cannot be sustained and is set aside.

16. The SCC Court is directed to decide the suit on merits and in accordance with law with all expedition. As the suit is of the year 2018, 4 SCCRD No. 11 of 2025 the same shall be decided without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, preferably within a period of one year from today.

17. The revision stands disposed of in terms of above. September 2, 2025 Ashutosh (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) ASHUTOSH PANDEY ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Mishra, Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Court No. - 6 I.A. No.1 of 2025 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the revision.

2. The cause shown is sufficient.

3. The application is allowed.

4. The delay is condoned. Order On Revision

5. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists.

6. An affidavit of service has been filed to the effect that the notice was served upon the respondent, however, he has refused to accept the notice. A copy of the petition was also sent through whats-app. However, no one is present on behalf of the respondent. In view of the affidavit of service, the notice is deemed to be served.

7. The present petition has been filed by the revisionist challenging an order dated 31.05.2025, whereby the order has been passed accepting the Application No.C-22 under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (herein-after known as the 'SCC Act') and the matter 2 SCCRD No. 11 of 2025 was relegated to be agitated before the competent court/Waqf Tribunal.

8. The facts in brief are that the revisionists are owners in possession of the shop under tenancy and had purchased the said property vide registered lease deed dated 07.04.1994. It is stated that the said property was leased out to the respondent in the year 2013 on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- per month, which was subsequently increased to Rs.8,000/-. It is stated that as the respondent stopped paying the rent, a notice was served upon the respondent to determine the tenancy and for arrears of rent. It is stated that the respondent instituted a suit No.1116 of 2017, in which a prayer was made that the plaintiff to the said suit may not be evicted except in accordance with law.

9. Perusal of the plaint on record reveals that the plaintiff to the said suit had admitted that he was a tenant of the defendant, who is a revisionist before this Court. After the said suit was filed, the revisionist herein preferred a SCC Suit No.6 of 2018 seeking arrears of rent and ejectment. In the meanwhile, the respondent, who is the tenant preferred a Suit No.68 of 2018 before the Waqf Tribunal seeking cancellation of lease in favour of the revisionist.

10. It transpires from the record that the revisionist had purchased the lease hold rights vide registered lease deed dated 07.04.1994 with the right to create a sub lease, on which the respondent was inducted as a tenant. The respondent on the strength of suit No.68 of 2018, wherein he had prayed for cancellation of the main lease granted in favour of the revisionist, filed an application under Section 23 of the SCC Act indicating that there was a title dispute and as such, the plaint ought to be returned. The said application was resisted by the revisionist. However, the impugned order came to be passed relegating the parties to approach the competent court/Waqf Tribunal.

11. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that once the factum of the tenancy was accepted in the suit filed by the respondent, an application under Section 23 of the Act ought not to have been entertained.

12. Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 is quoted 3 SCCRD No. 11 of 2025 herein-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)] [Now see the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Sch.I, Order 7, Rule 10.] 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)] [Now see the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)], 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."

13. On a plain reading of the said provision, it is clear that the power under Section 23 of the SCC Act can be exercised only when the relief claimed by the plaintiff depends on the proof or disproof of a title to immovable property, which cannot be determined finally by the JSC Court, the Court can return the plaint.

14. In the present case, the relationship of the land lord and tenant was established and was also admitted by the respondent, who is the defendant to the suit. Thus, there was no occasion for the court to have passed the order under Section 23 of the SCC Act as has been done by means of the impugned judgement.

15. Finding the exercise of power under Section 23 of the Act is prima facie bad in law, in view of the admission of the respondent, the same cannot be sustained and is set aside.

16. The SCC Court is directed to decide the suit on merits and in accordance with law with all expedition. As the suit is of the year 2018, 4 SCCRD No. 11 of 2025 the same shall be decided without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, preferably within a period of one year from today.

17. The revision stands disposed of in terms of above. September 2, 2025 Ashutosh (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) ASHUTOSH PANDEY ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench