BUDHU MAL ETC., versus MAHABIR PRASAD & ORS., ETC.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 238 · Decided: 05-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
BUDHU MAL ETC., 
v. 
MAHABIR PRASAD & ORS., ETC. 
AUGUST 5, 1988 
[R.S. PATHAK, C.J., L.M. SHARMA AND 
N.D. OJHA. JJ.] 
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act-Section 23 of-Landlord-
Tenant dispute-Determination of title to property let out-Whether 
landlord can unilaterally cancel a deed giving to another party benefits 
arising out of property let out whether section 23 is attracted in the case. 
These appeals were preferred by tenants against the judgment of 
the High Court in civil revisions. 
D 
Respondent Mahabir Prasad had executed a registered deed 
dated 8th December, 1966 with regard to premises in question, giving 
the benefits arising out of the said properties to his grandsons and their 
mother Smt. Sulocbana Devi. He informed the tenants to make pay-
ment of rent to Smt. Sulochana Devi in terms of the said deed. Later, 
Mahabir Prasad executed a registered deed of cancellation dated 3rd 
E 
November, 1970, cancelling the aforesaid deed dated 8th December, 
1966 and debarring the grandsons and their mother from the right to 
realise rent and informed the tenants about the said deed of cancella· 
tion. 
Subsequently, Mahabir Prasad instituted suits in the Court of the 
F 
Judge, Small Causes against the appellant-tenants, for recovery of 
arrears of rent and their eviction on the ground that in spite of their 
being informed of the deed of cancellation, they had not paid· rent to 
him. The appellants contended that the deed dated 8th December, 1966, 
( 
could not· be unilaterally cancelled by Mahabir Prasad, and t!J.e rent 
claimed by him bad already been paid by them to Smt. Suiochllllll Devi. 
G The title of Mahabir Prasad to realise rent was disputed by the appel-
lants who bad contended that the suit involving a question of title was 
not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The Judge, Small Causes, 
decreed the suits. The appellants tiled revisions before the District 
Judge wbndismissed the same. Further revisions filed by the appellants 
in the High Court were also dismissed. The appellants moved this Court 
H 
for relief by special leave against the Judgments of the High Court. 
238 
BUDHU MAL v. MAHABIR PRASAD [OJHA~J.] 
Allowing the appeals, the Court, 
HELD: The provisions of section 23 of the Provincial Sm11ll 
Cause Courts Act (the Act) were clearly attracted in these cases· and the 
plaints in the cases ought to have been returned for presentation to a 
Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. It is true that Section 
· 23 does not make it obligatory on the Court of Small Causes to invari-
ably return the plaint once a question of title is raised by the tenant, and 
that in a suit instituted by the landlord against bis tenant on the basis of 
contract of tenancy, a question of title could also incidentally be gone 
into and that any finding recorded by a Judge, Small Causes, in this 
behalf could not be res judicata in a suit based on title, but it cannot be 
gainsaid that in enacting section 23 the Legislature must have had in 
contemplation some cases in which the discretion to return the. plaint 
ought to be exercised in order to do complete justice between the 
parties. On facts, these are cases in whicl.i in order to do· complete 
justice between the parties the plaints ought to have been returned (or 
presentation to a court having jurisdiction to determine the title· so that 
none of the parties was prejudiced. [242B, H, 243A-C, F] 
Judgments and decrees of the courts below were set aside and the 
Judge, Small Causes was directed to return the plaints of the cases for 
presentation to the appropriate Court as contemplated by section 23 of 
the Act. [243F-G I 
_CIVIL APPE_LLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1271 
and 1272 of 1978. 
· 
· 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.4.1978 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Civil Revision Nos. 161and163 of 1975. 
G .L. Sanghi, K.B. Rohtagi and Praveen Jain for the Appellants. 
Satish Chandra Aggarwal, S.K. Dhingra, Pramod Swarup, S.K. 
Mehta and Aman Vachhar fQX the Respondents. 
' 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
OJHA, J. These appeals by special leave have been preferred by 
tenants of certain premises against the judgment qf the Allahabad 
High Court dismissing their civil revisions. 
A 
B 
c 
E 
F 
G 
The facts in a nutshell necessary for the decision of these appeals 
H 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp .. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
are that one Mahabir Prasad had let out the premises in question to the 
appellants. It a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.