JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a civil revision directed against the order dated 28th August, 1981, passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Agra, returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court. This order was passed under section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. 2. A suit had been filed by the plaintiff Prem Kumar for ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profits against the defendant opposite parties. In the plaint, it was alleged that the plaintiff revisionist became the owner and landlord of the house in dispute through a sale deed dated 14th December, 1973, executed by one Smt. Lakshmi Devi in his favour. He further alleged that he was the landlord of the premises and that the defendant opposite party was his tenant. 3. During the pendency of the suit. Ram Saran opposite party No. 1, who has died during the pendency of the revision and his heirs have been brought on the record, made an application that the case involves a question of title and, as such, the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper court, as required under section 23 of the Act. I have perused the order passed by the court below. I find that the court below has acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in returning the plaint. 4. The sale deed in question was executed by Smt. Lakshmi Devi in favour of the plaintiff revisionist. Smt. Lakshmi Devi has not challenged the sale deed as being a sham transaction Ram Saran Singh, opposite party No. 1, had, in fact admitted the execution of the sale deed and also admitted the execution of the rent note. In a suit between the landlord and tenant, the only question which has to be decided by the court is as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. The Judge. Small Cause Court is not required to go into the title to the property. Merely because Ram Saran Singh urged that the sale deed was a sham transaction, it cannot be said that any question of title is involved in the case. The court below has to record its finding in regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant on the basis of the documents and other evidence which is produced by the parties. Merely because Ram Saran Singh urged that the sale deed was a sham transaction, it cannot be said that any question of title is involved in the case. The court below has to record its finding in regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant on the basis of the documents and other evidence which is produced by the parties. In the circumstances, it was not necessary at all to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court under section 23 of the Act. 5. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order dated 28th August, 1981, is set aside and the case is remanded to the court below for deciding the suit filed by the revisionist expeditiously. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.