ORDER A.N. Varma, J. - This is a landlady's petition directed against an order passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Rampur dated 4-12-1978 remanding the case to the trial Court with the direction that the plaint of the suit giving rise to this petition be returned to the plaintiff for being presented to the proper court. 2. The suit was filed by the petitioner for the ejectment of respondent No. 1 on the following assertions. The plaintiff was the owner of the land over which the construction in suit is standing. The plaintiff let out the land on 1.11.1966 through her husband Azmat All Khan on a monthly rental of Rs. 20/- for installing a machine for cutting green fodder. 3. It was agreed that the defendant would raise construction over the land for installing the machine and the amount spent over the making of the construction would be adjusted towards the rent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month until the entire amount spent over the construction was paid off. The defendant raised constructions in pursuance of that agreement and adjusted the cost at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month till 31-1-77. It was also agreed on 1-4-74 that after the cost of the constructions has been paid off by the landlady, the rent for the premises would be Rs. 50/- per month. However, after the costs of the building constructed over the land in suit had been fully adjusted against the rent, the defendant did not pay the enhanced rent. He fell in arrears which he did not pay despite a notice of demand. Hence, the suit. 4. The defendant contested the suit and asserted that the plaintiff was not the owner of the property in suit. He denied that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The agreement set up by the plaintiff was also denied. The defendant claimed himself to be the owner of the property. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, relevant issues were framed. 6. The trial court held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving the agreement set up by her and that in fact the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff, first of the land, and, subsequently under the agreement entered on 1-4-74 of the entire property including the constructions standing over the land in suit at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. 50/- per month. The trial court held that the defendant was in arrears which he failed to pay despite the notice of demand served upon him by the plaintiff. The suit of the petitioner was consequently decreed for the ejectment of the defendant from the property in suit which consisted of the land as well as the building thereon described at the foot of the plaint as well as for recovery of Rs. 1600/- as arrears of rent and Rs. 200/- as mesne profits, pendents, lite and future mesne profits decreed at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree, the defendant filed a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The revisional Court allowed the revision and remanded the case to the trial court with the direction mentioned above on the ground that the case involved determination of a question of title relating to an immovable property, and consequently, the plaint was liable to be returned for being presented to the court having jurisdiction to try the suit. 8. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the revisional court has fallen into a manifest error of law in holding that the plaint was liable to be returned under section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. It was urged that no objection was raised to the trial of the suit by the learned Judge Small Cause Court on behalf of the defendant. In any case, the finding of the Additional District Judge that the learned Judge Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit was manifestly unsustainable in law. It was also vehemently contended that the revisional court committed a patent illegality in setting aside the findings of fact recorded by the trial court on a mere reappraisal of evidence. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand urged that the learned Judge Small Causes had no jurisdiction to try the suit, and that the revisional court rightly directed the plaintiff to return the plaint under section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the view that the order is manifestly unsustainable in law. The revisional court appears to have misconstrued the plaint case. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the view that the order is manifestly unsustainable in law. The revisional court appears to have misconstrued the plaint case. The plaintiff's case was that though initially only vacant land was let out to the defendant for the purpose of installing a machine for cutting green fodder, under a subsequent agreement referred to above, the defendant was to make certain constructions, the cost of which was to be paid by the landlady, and, later with effect from 1-4-74, the rent for the entire premises including construction was stipulated to be Rs. 50/- per month. A perusal of the plaint, therefore clearly shows that according to the plaintiff, the defendant had in course of time become a tenant of the entire premises including the building standing thereon. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the suit was by lessor for the ejectment of the lessee from land only. The suit is expressly for ejectment of the tenant from the entire premises including the constructions standing over the land. The basic premises of the learned Additional District Judge for holding that the suit was not cognizable by learned Judge Small Causes was, therefore, wrong. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on several decisions of this Court in support of his contention that where the landlord lets out only an open piece of land initially and subsequently the tenant raised some constructions thereon, the suit in such cases would not be cognizable by the Judge Small Cause Court but will be triable on the regular side as in those cases the lease is in respect of land only and not of the building standing thereon. There can be no doubt about this proposition. But in the present case, on the plain averments, it is clear that the plaintiff is claiming to be the lessor not only of the land but of the building also. According to the plaint case, therefore, the defendant was the lessee of the entire premises including the building standing thereon at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. Whether this case is true or not has to be decided on the basis of the evidence on record. According to the plaint case, therefore, the defendant was the lessee of the entire premises including the building standing thereon at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. Whether this case is true or not has to be decided on the basis of the evidence on record. But on the plaint averments, it would not be correct to say that the suit was for the ejectment of the defendant only from a vacant piece of land. 12. Learned II Additional District Judge also appears to have misunderstood the true scope of section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. Section 23(1) of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act does not lay down that the Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to try a suit where a question of title might arise for determination. It only vests a discretion in the court to return the plaint in appropriate cases where intricate questions of title might have to be decided. Unless, therefore, the court comes to a conclusion that it would not be possible to decide issue relating to title of immovable property in summary procedure, it is not hound to return the plaint. In the present case, the learned Additional District Judge appears to have directed the return of the plaint on the grounds which appear to be wholly untenable. He has observed : "In a suit for recovery of possession and rent on the strength of a lease, the question of hollowness of the lease is a matter which goes to the root of the whole case. If the lease is hollow, then the defendant is not a tenant and the plaintiff cannot succeed upon the basis of tenancy hence the court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to try the suit." 14. The mere fact that the defendant might choose to deny the fact of relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiff, is not sufficient ground straight-away to direct the return of the plaint under section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The mere fact that the defendant might choose to deny the fact of relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiff, is not sufficient ground straight-away to direct the return of the plaint under section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. In the present case, I find nothing either in the pleadings of the parties or even the evidence referred to in the orders passed by the courts below which may suggest that it was not possible for the learned Judge Small Causes to decide the question the question as to whether the defendant was or was not the lessee of the plaintiff. There was hence no warrant for directing the return of the plaint. 15. The learned Judge also appears to have exceeded his jurisdiction under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act in entering into a reappraisal of the evidence on record on matters purely of questions of facts. In any case, as held by this Court in the case of Lakshmi Kishore v. Har Prasad Shukla and others, 1979 Allahabad Weekly Cases 746, in case the revisional court was of the opinion that the trial court had committed some error of law in the appreciation of the evidence, the proper course was to have remanded the case to the trial court. 16. For all the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the revisional court is liable to be set aside and is quashed. The revisional court will decide the revision filed by the tenant according to law having regard to the observations made in the judgment. 17. The parties shall bear their own costs.