JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C. J. - This is a plaintiffs' application in revision, the plaintiff-applicants' suit for ejectment of the defendant and recovery of arrears of rent from him has been dismissed. 2. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendant was their tenant on a rent of Rs. 150/- per month. The defendant did not pay rent for a long time. He was served with a notice of demand and to quit in January 1977, but, in spite of its service, he did not pay the arrears of rent or vacated the premises. The defendant made material alterations in the building. He also illegally tablet the accommodation to other persons. 3. The defendant denied that there existed any relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiffs. According to him, the accommodation was allotted to him under the Rent Control Act on May 15, 1968. The plaintiffs or their mother who was acting as the landlady at that time did not agree to accept the defendant as their tenant and did not permit him to take possession. Shortly thereafter on December 12, 1968 the plaintiffs and their mother entered into a contract of sale of the accommodation to Dr. V. Samant and, in part performance of that contract, delivered possession of the accommodation to her. Dr. Samant ultimately agreed to let out the premises to the defendant on payment of Rs. 75/- per month as rent. The defendant was the tenant of Dr. Samant. He has been regularly paying rent to her. The plaintiffs are not the defendant's landlords or lessors. The allegation that he had sublet the premises or had made material alterations in the premises were denied. 4. The trial court on an exhaustive review of the evidence on record held that the plaintiffs did not agree to let out the premises to the defendant in spite of the allotment order passed in his favour in 1968. They resisted the defendant from taking possession of the premises. They entered into a contract of sale of the accommodation with Dr. Samant and, in part performance of that contract, they delivered possession of premises to her. Dr. Samant let out the premises to the defendant. She was the landlady of the defendant. The plaintiffs never became the landlords or lessors of the defendant. The relationship of landlord and tenant never came into existence between the plaintiffs and the defendant. Samant and, in part performance of that contract, they delivered possession of premises to her. Dr. Samant let out the premises to the defendant. She was the landlady of the defendant. The plaintiffs never became the landlords or lessors of the defendant. The relationship of landlord and tenant never came into existence between the plaintiffs and the defendant. There was hence no question of the defendant having defaulted in paying the rent to the plaintiffs. The plea that the defendant had made material alterations in the building or that he had sublet the premises to other persons was also negatived. On these findings the suit was dismissed. 5. Mr. M.C. Agarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicants, submitted that Dr. Samant never became the owner of the premises merely because of the execution of the contract of sale of the premises to Dr. Samant. The plaintiffs continued to retain the ownership of the premises. They alone were entitled to let out the premises. The allotment order issued in favour of the defendant by the rent control authorities directed the plaintiffs to let out the premises to the defendant. The defendant was hence the plaintiffs' tenant. Learned counsel also questioned the finding that Dr. Samant was the landlady in so far as the defendant was concerned. 6. The court below has exhaustively dealt with the evidence on record, both oral and documentary. It was taken into consideration the various admissions of the plaintiffs and so-called admissions of the defendant and I cannot say that the court below has committed any error of law in assessing the evidence. The question whether the plaintiffs were the defendant's lesson or whether there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was essentially a question of facts and the finding thereon cannot be disturbed unless some legal flaw is pointed out. Learned counsel failed to point out any such legal error. The execution of the contract of sale of the premises in favour of Dr. Samant has not been disputed. Learned counsel stated during arguments that the plaintiffs have cancelled the contract but this was denied by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant. There is nothing on record to suggest that the contract of sale has been put an end to or has ceased to be operative. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that Dr. Learned counsel stated during arguments that the plaintiffs have cancelled the contract but this was denied by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant. There is nothing on record to suggest that the contract of sale has been put an end to or has ceased to be operative. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that Dr. Samant did not file any suit for specific performance of contract of sale. More than three years have elapsed. Such a suit would now be barred by limitation. Dr. Samant's rights have thus come to an end. The submission suffers from a fallacy. The finding of fact is that on the execution of the contract of sale in favour of Dr. Samant the plaintiffs delivered possession of the premises to her in part performance of the contract. Dr. Samant came in possession. At first he resisted the defendant from taking possession. She filed a suit for an injunction against the defendant but when the suit was dismissed, she agreed and did let out the premises to the defendant. Since Dr. Samant came in possession in part performance of the contract of sale it cannot be said that Dr. Samant's rights have completer vanished. She may be entitled to put up the contract of sale to protect her possession or as a defence to any suit that the plaintiffs may file. It cannot hence be said with certainty that Dr. Samant's rights have extinguished. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs then submitted that the plaintiffs undoubtedly are the owners of the building. The defendant, having denied any relationship of landlord and tenant with the plaintiffs, is in possession ass trespasser so far as the plaintiffs are concerned. They are entitled to possession on the strength of their paramount title. 8. Normally in a suit based on a contract of tenancy the plaintiffs can be given relief, even if the contract of tenancy is not established, on the basic of paramount title, if that is established. But the difficulty here is that the plaintiffs chose to file the suit in the Court of Small Causes as a suit between the landlord and tenant. The Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession on title. The court below hence could not treat the instant suit as a suit for possession on title. 9. The Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession on title. The court below hence could not treat the instant suit as a suit for possession on title. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicants then submitted that this Court may, after setting aside the decree, remand the suit to the court below for being tried as a regular suit for possession on title. There are several difficulties in adopting the Course. On facts, it is clear that the defendant claims to be the tenant of Dr. Samant. Dr. Samant is not a party in the present suit. The plaintiffs will have to make appropriate allegations to get rid of the contract of sale entered into between them and Dr. Samant. The present suit is merely on the basis of contract of tenancy between the plaint and the defendant. The suit for possession on title will be structurally materially different. It will need completely a different set of pleadings. Then the plaintiffs never made this prayer for treating the suit as one for possession based on the plaintiffs' title and trying it on the regular side at any time while the suit was pending before the trial court. In my opinion, it will not be fair or proper to accede to this submission at this late stage. 10. In the result, the revision fails and is according dismissed, but I make no order as to costs.