Anjani Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner-landlord, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order passed by the revisional court whereby the revisional court exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the) allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and directed return of the plaint under Section 23 of theto the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate court (on the regular side).

2. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant-tenant for arrears of rent and ejectment of the tenant. The tenant contested the aforesaid suit and alleged that the petitioner was neither owner nor there was any relationship of landlord and tenant and it was further alleged that the amount said to have paid by the defendant-tenant was in fact loan taken by Smt. Chunia, the mother of defendant, and since there does not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant, the suit is not cognizable before the Judge Small Clause Court. The plaint was returned for presentation to the appropriate court.

3. The trial court framed issues arising out of aforesaid controversy and decided the matter against the tenant holding that merely because the tenant raises a dispute or denied the title in the written statement, it is not sufficient to oust the decision of the Court, namely the Small Cause Court, and therefore the trial court after going into the material on the record arrived at the conclusion and recorded a finding that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant and that the tenant has committed default thus made himself liable for ejectment. The trial court, therefore, decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby the tenant-respondent preferred a revision under Section 25 of the. The revisional court has entered into evidence on the record and arrived at a conclusion that since there is denial of title and relationship of landlord and tenant, the trial court has committed an error in entertaining the suit. The revision, therefore, was allowed. The matter was remanded back to the trial court with a direction to return the plaint under Section 23 of the.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Satish Kumar v. Zarif Ahmad and Ors. 1997 (2) ARC 315 [LQ/SC/1997/333] , wherein in para 9 the Apex Court has held as under :

"The proviso is not applicable to the facts in this case and, therefore, it is not necessary to look into the exceptions engrafted vis-a-vis receipt of a documents comprising of three circumstances mentioned therein, namely, unregistered document used for enforcement of specific performance under the Specific Relief Act or used as an evidence of part performance of the contract under Section 53A of the T.P. Act or using evidence for collateral transactions. The combined effect of all the provisions is that any unregistered lease deed executed from month to month, or for a period not exceeding 11 months, though reduced to writing and possession is delivered thereunder to a tenant, is not a compulsorily registerable instrument and, therefore, the prohibition contained in Section 49 of the Registration Act is inapplicable. Therefore, the document is admissible in evidence to consider the effect of the immovable property contained therein or to receive as an evidence of any transaction vis-a-vis such property."

5. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the revisional court that unregistered document cannot be looked into for determination of nature of lease deserves to be set aside and thus the sole ground on which the revisional court has set aside the decree passed by the trial court and directed return of the plaint under Section 23 of thealso deserves to be set aside. Apart from above merely because the tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant and the title of the landlord is not sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the Court trying the suit. As would be clear from perusal of the trial courts order the trial court has considered the defence taken by the tenant and recorded a finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the plaintiff and defendant and therefore decreed the suit.

6. No other point was argued.

7. In view of what has been discussed above this writ petition is allowed. The order of the revisional court is set aside. The revisional court is directed to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law and in the light of observations made in this judgment.

8. Since the matter is fairly old the revisional court is directed to decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this judgment.