JUDGMENT 1. THESE two Civil Rules arise out of two applications under section 25 of the provincial small Causes Court Act, 1887 and they have been ordered to be heard analogously. The applicants in both these cases are the same. They have filed two suits being Small Causes Court suit No. 2 of 1 978 against Nor Mahammed Ali and Small Causes court Suit No. 3 of 1978 against one Dhirendra Nath Biswas in the 2nd Court of Munsif at Basirhat (S. C. C. Judge) for realisation of arrears of rent. They claimed to have acquired exclusive interest in the property in which the opposite parties of these two civil rules were holding as tenants. 2. BOTH the opposite parties raised a plea before the learned s. C. C. Judge that is they held tenancy under one Asoke Mitra and had been paying rent to him and as Asoke Kumar Mitra sold away his share to Samjed Ali and Sandhya Rani Modak and as the opposite parties were paying rent to them and a title suit is pending decision between the petitioner and those purchasers complicated questions of title have arises, and the plaint should be returned by the learned Judge. The learned Judge returned both the plaints holding that there is a complicated question of title involved in. the instant suits which cannot be decided by the Small Causes Court, specially when there is a suit pending between the parties over the matter. With those observations he returned the plaint to the present petitioners in both the suits for presenting the same to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. Being aggrieved these two applications have been filed before this Court under section 25 of the provincial Small Cause Court Act. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Small Causes Court Judge was in error in returning the plaint, that he had jurisdiction to enter into the question of title as a collateral issue, that there was no complicated question of title, that only because a title suit is pending in between the present petitioners and some other persons, who, admittedly purchased the four annas share of Asoke Kumar Mitra subsequent to the purchase of the present petitioners, it cannot be held that there is such a complicated question of title which could compel the learned Small Causes Court to return the plaint. 3. THE opposite parties in both the rules have not entered appearance. 4. THE only point for decision in these two Civil Rules is whether the learned Small Causes Court Judge was in error in returning the plaints observing that the suits raised a complicated question of title. I have carefully perused the plaint and written statement filed in both the S. C. C. Suits. The plaintiffs claiming to have purchased 16 annas interest have filed the suits against two of their tenants for recovery of arrears of rent in the Small Causes Court being Munsif, 2nd Court, basirhat. The Small Causes Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain and decide a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. It has been alleged by the petitioners in both, the plaints that after their purchase, they sent letters of attornment to the tenants, the present opposite parties, and they received those letters of attornment. The opposite parties in both the suits appear to have taken the [plea that as Samjed Ali and sandhya Rani Modak purchased thee property from Asoke Kumar mitra and they attorned tenancy right under them and a title suit being Title Suit No. 79 of 1977 is pending concerning the said sale, a complicated question of title has arise. But the defendant has admitted that Samjed Ali and Sandhya Rani modak purchased four annas interest of the suit property from ashoke Kumar Mitra. The present petitioners claimed that Ashoke kumar Mitra sold away his share to the present petitioners, and if, thereafter, the sale deed were executed in favour of samjed Ali and Sandhya Rani, that will not confer any title and that prima facie the plaintiff had sufficient exclusive title to obtain relief for recovery of arrears of rent from the Court of Small Causes. Further, Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the petitioners has referred to me the decision as reported in ILR (1931) Cal. 1001, Rajendra Nath Mullick vs. Nandalal Gupta. Their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court in the said reported decision have observed that if the question of title was sole question in the case, then the jurisdiction of the Small Causes court would be ousted, and that if that is not so, although the question of title may be a principal one, the jurisdiction is not ousted. Their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court in the said reported decision have observed that if the question of title was sole question in the case, then the jurisdiction of the Small Causes court would be ousted, and that if that is not so, although the question of title may be a principal one, the jurisdiction is not ousted. It has also been observed by their Lordships that one must bear in mind that it is an easy thing for the defendant to set up a question of title with a view to ousting the jurisdiction and driving the plaintiff to another Tribunal. The decision of Bombay High Court reported in ILR Vol 20 Bombay p. 15 at page 45 has also been referred to where it has been on served that in the case of rent sued for in the Small Causes court, the Court has to incidentally determine a question of title to land on which directly it has no jurisdiction. 5. ANOTHER decision of the Bombay High Court reported in air 1976 Bombay page 52, Shankarrao vs. Gendalal, has also been cited where it has been clearly observed that in a suit for recovery of rent before the Court of Small Causes by the plaintiff having the sale deed in his favour, the plaint cannot be returned only because the defendant tenant challenged the title of the plaintiff when no specific grounds invalidating the sale deed has been mentioned in the written statement and the written statement merely disclosed that a dispute was pending between the plaintiff and the vendors. It has been clearly held that merely on account of that dispute it could not. be said that in the suit there was complicated dispute about the title of the property. With these observations the learned single Judge held that the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. 6. THE facts of the present case in both the Rules are exactly similar. The plaintiff on the basis of exclusive filed these two suits for recovery of arrears of rent against two tenants. The defendant raised the plea that the co-sharer having four annas interest sold the property to somebody else and a title suit is pending over the said purchase. The plaintiff on the basis of exclusive filed these two suits for recovery of arrears of rent against two tenants. The defendant raised the plea that the co-sharer having four annas interest sold the property to somebody else and a title suit is pending over the said purchase. Only because a title suit is pending it cannot be held in the facts and circumstances of the present case that there is any complicated question of title which a Court of Small Causes could not decide incidentally on taking proper evidence. Therefore, I am in full agreement with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners in both the Rules that the learned Small Causes Court Judge was not at all justified in returning the plaint of these two suits. The orders passed by the learned Judge in both the S. C. C. suits are hereby set aside. The learned Judge is directed to her both the suits on taking proper evidence. The judgment shall govern both the rules. 7. THE Rules are, accordingly made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. Let the records be sent down to the court below as expeditiously as possible. Rules made absolute.