Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42972 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1738 of 2022 Petitioner :- Krishna Mohan Agarwal And Others Respondent :- Ist Additional District And Session Judge,Lakhimpur Kheri And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- Samarth Saxena Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appears on behalf of the respondent even in the revised call. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 12.02.2014 passed in SCC Suit No. 1 of 1998, whereby the application under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act came to be allowed, and the parties were relegated to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of their disputes. The revision preferred by the petitioners against the said order was dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2022 passed in SCC Revision No. 3 of 2014. Both the said orders are under challenge. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the issue between the parties, specifically with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant, is no longer res integra and was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 06.02.2020 in Second Appeal No. 37 of 2020. In the backdrop of the said submission, it is essential to notice the facts which have led to the filing of the present petition. The property in question was owned by one Murli Dhar Agarwal, who died in the year 1976, leaving behind his daughter, Smt. Anardevi, as the sole heir and legal representative. However, one Badri Prasad, claiming himself to be the adopted son of Murli Dhar Agarwal, challenged the succession of the property in favour of Smt. Anardevi by filing Suit No. 26 of 1977, which was dismissed on 13.08.1992, as well as the dismissal of the appeal on 09.07.1996. The second appeal against the said order is said to be pending, in which no interim order has been passed. It is also essential to notice that, on the property in question, one Ganga Prasad Pandey Trust also claimed rights by virtue of a will and filed an application under Section 92 of the Indian Trusts Act, which was dismissed on 17.05.2003 and has attained finality. Admittedly, the petitioners before this Court are the legal heirs and children of Smt. Anardevi and claim ownership by title of succession. In light of the claims made over the property by Badri Prasad and the Ganga Prasad Pandey Trust, the tenants had moved an application under Section 23 of the SCC Act alleging that there was a title dispute, which was upheld by the SCC Court and affirmed by the Revisional Court. The conduct of the tenants is also to be noticed from the fact that all three tenants, including the respondent herein, had filed an interpleader suit being RS No. 290 of 2016, in which an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was filed, which was allowed, and the plaint was rejected. The appeal against the said order rejecting the plaint, being Appeal No. 79 of 2017, was also dismissed on 09.01.2020, and the Second Appeal No. 37 of 2020 was also dismissed on 06.02.2020, in which observations were made with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant. Sri N.K. Seth, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, is correct in arguing that once the relationship of landlord and tenant stands settled inter se between the parties by virtue of a judgment dated 06.02.2020, the orders of the Courts below relegating the parties under Section 23 are wholly unjustified. The said orders are further bad in law, inasmuch as Section 23 confers the power upon the Court of Small Causes to return the plaint for being presented to a Court having jurisdiction only when the right of the plaintiff and the relief claimed by him depend on the proof or disproof of the title of an immovable property. In the present case, in terms of the prescriptions contained in Section 3(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which defines a tenant to include any person by whom the rent is payable, Section 3(g), which defines family in relation to the landlord or tenant of the building, and Section 3(j), which defines landlord to include any person to whom rent is payable. Admittedly, in the present case, Sri Murli Dhar Agarwal was the owner of the property and thereafter, in terms of title succession, Smt. Anardevi, and thereafter the petitioners herein, would be the successors in interest to whom the rent is payable, except when the challenge to the ownership is upheld by any competent Court of law, only then can it be alleged or stated that the petitioners as landlords were not entitled to maintain the suit. Thus, for all the reasoning above, the petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Both the impugned orders are quashed. The matter is remanded to the SCC Court to decide the suit afresh in accordance with law. As the matter is quite old, the SCC Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties, preferably within a period of one year. (Pankaj Bhatia, J) Order Date :- 24.7.2025 A.Dewal Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench