Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32039 Court No. - 4 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 19 of 2025 Revisionist :- Hari Shankar Opposite Party :- Subhash Chandra Bhagat(Since Deceased Represented By Lrs) And 2 Other Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashish Jaiswal,Pramod Kumar Yadav,Vinayak Varma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Manish Tandon Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Vinayak Varma, learned counsel for the revision applicant and Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of this revision petition filed under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, petitioner has questioned the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by Judge, Small Causes, whereby, his misc. application filed under Section 23 of the PSCC Act for return of the plaint has come to be dismissed. 3. Assailing the judgment and order passed by Judge, Small Causes, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that although in the written statement a stand was taken that there was an agreement entered between the father of the respondent and him but he also took a stand that agreement got signed fraudulently and that landlord was not the owner of the property, rather it was Dharamshala and hence there arose a serious dispute as to the title which cannot be examined by the Judge, Small Causes in Small Cause Suit proceedings. 4. In the circumstances, it is pleaded that the plaint is liable to be returned. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Sri Manish Tandon states that once in the written statement petitioner himself admitted that he was inducted as a tenant in the premises in question pursuant to an agreement, then whether such an agreement got fraudulently prepared or otherwise, status of lessee does not get change. Petitioner accepted himself to be a tenant by virtue of an agreement, may be, the agreement was according to him got fraudulently signed and in the circumstances, therefore, he cannot now change his stand at the stage of recording of evidence in the proceedings to question the title of the landlord/ respondent and to maintain an the application under Section 23 of PSCC Act. 6. Sri Tandon further argues that it was after an order was passed by this Court on 28.05.2024 in Matters Under Article 227 No. 6975 of 2024 to expedite the proceedings that petitioner came to moved an application for the first time on 17.10.2024 under Section 23 of PSCC Act for the return of the plaint. Sri Tandon further submitted that it is settled preposition of law that once a person has been inducted as tenant and has come in possession in such a capacity by an agreement written or oral, then he can be allowed to question the title of the landlord only after vacating the premises in question and handing over possession thereof to the landlord. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that under an agreement petitioner has has inducted as a tenant for a period of 11 months and the rate of rent was fixed as Rs. 18,000/-. This much has been quite unequivocally admitted in the written statement, however, there is a rider attached to the same that the agreement was got fraudulently signed. Thus, it stands to be an admitted position on the part of tenant that he was inducted as a tenant and that is how he came into possession of property in question. Petitioner does not deny that he is paying rent to the current landlord who has succeeded the property from his father who had inducted the petitioner as tenant in the premises. 8. In such circumstances, therefore, in my considered view, title cannot be germane to the controversy looking to the nature of the pleadings raised by the parties in the case. Petitioner has been given notice on account of default in payment of rent and, therefore, the suit was maintainable at the instance of landlord with whose father the petitioner had entered an agreement, may be petitioner can raise such an issue of title in a separate civil suit proceedings but as far as the current suit for eviction is concerned, it is a case purely arising out of a rent agreement that inducted petitioner as tenant in the premises in question. 9. In such circumstances, therefore, Section 23 application was not maintainable and hence has rightly been rejected by the Judge, Small Cause. 10. Petition is devoid of merit and accordingly indulgence is refused. Matter is consigned to records. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 IrfanUddin Digitally signed by :- IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad