JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. 1. This writ petition raises issues which begin with inequitable pleas. The petitioner, sixteen years ago, broke into an accommodation at 70-A, Alimpura, Vishleshwarpur, Meerut Cantonment and thereafter continued to reside there by harassing the erstwhile owner by neither vacating or paying rent consideration for the use and occupation of the premises. The owner (landlord) resided in Agra. Being unsuccessful in shaking the petitioner off his back the owner sold the property to one Jagmandar Dass Singhal by a sale deed executed on 23rd May, 1984. The petitioner continued to occupy the premises and would not pay rent to the subsequent purchaser respondent no. 3. He was questioned by respondent no. 3 that he had paid rent on occasions to the erstwhile owner in cash and by cheques but stopped paying it somewhere in May, 1984. 2. An action by a suit was filed against the petitioner is pursuance of subclause (2) of Section 20 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 seeking eviction on the ground that the petitioner would not pay rent and had made structural alterations in the building. The petitioner in the written statement took up the defence that the subsequent purchaser respondent no. 3 is not the owner and even otherwise the petitioner has ownership rights on the premises. The petitioner in his defence urged that no rent was due; that he had the right to make material alterations on the ground that he was the owner of the property, and had become as such, by adverse possession. In his written statement before the Judge Small Causes, he questioned the jurisdiction of the Judge Small Causes on the ground that the question of title cannot be gone into by that court and it would be better if the pleas were decided before a civil court. The Judge Small Causes took the view that if there was an issue on ownership, it can be decided only after the parties have adduced evidence, and until this does not happen the court cannot reflect upon the proposition of ownership. The request of the petitioner that the plaint be returned to the civil court was denied and the application seeking such a request was rejected. This was the order of the Judge Small Causes on 9th September, 1986. Against this, the petitioner filed a revision before the IV Additional District Judge, Meerut. The request of the petitioner that the plaint be returned to the civil court was denied and the application seeking such a request was rejected. This was the order of the Judge Small Causes on 9th September, 1986. Against this, the petitioner filed a revision before the IV Additional District Judge, Meerut. The learned District Judge, aforesaid, was of the view that the jurisdiction of Judge Small Causes to decide the question of relationship of landlord-tenant is not taken away by the denial of the plaintiff's title by the defendant. The learned District Judge was of the opinion that this question can be examined by the Judge Small Causes despite the denial by the defendant and the trial court had committed no error when it had wanted to be prima facie satisfied that indeed if there be an issue of title then parties must adduce evidence to show that such was the case, and merely saying so would not do. 3. The learned District Judge has examined the issues of how the petitioner forcibly occupied the house and had denied his erstwhile owner access to it and later confronted the owner with the claim that he was in adverse possession. These observations have been set on record by the District Judge and are part of the petition. 4. The petitioner has no hesitation in placing on record a letter dated loth May, 1971 of the erstwhile owner by which the petitioner had been charged of breaking open the locks of the house and occupying it illegally. The allegation against the petitioner was trespass and house breaking. It has been contended at the bar on behalf of the petitioner that this is how he came into possession and now has title on the aforesaid property by adverse possession. In fact the petitioner claims to take support from this letter of the owner, to justify possession of the property. The letter reads : "Dear Ram Kishan Ji, Agra 10-5-71 My son-in-law Dr. M. P. Gupta from Meerut has informed me that you have broken open the locks of my kothi No. 70-A, Alimpura, Meerut Cantt and have taken possession of the same. Thereafter last week when I visited Meerut I visited the said kothi also and saw that you have really occupied my building after breaking open the locks. M. P. Gupta from Meerut has informed me that you have broken open the locks of my kothi No. 70-A, Alimpura, Meerut Cantt and have taken possession of the same. Thereafter last week when I visited Meerut I visited the said kothi also and saw that you have really occupied my building after breaking open the locks. When I contacted you then you misbehaved and started alleging yourself to be the owner of the said kothi and told me that 1 may do whatever I can do though keeping in view our past relations it was not proper on your part and our relations were also not close to that extent that you entered into the said premises yourself after breaking open the locks without taking permission from me. I am very sad on your said conduct and you must change your behaviour and treatment. Instead of feeling sorry on the said incident and asking me to forgive you, and vacating the house, you have threatened me and started alleging yourself to be the owner of the said property. Now you must realise one thing very clearly that there must not be any misunderstanding in your mind that since I reside at Agra, therefore, I cannot evict you from the said house. I hereby ask you to vacate the said accommodation atonce and give me the keys of the said accommodation after locking the doors otherwise I will take both civil and criminal action against you and will also lodge first information report against you. I am writing this latter to you so that you might withdraw your action and good senses may prevail upon you so that in future you may not claim for what I did. Hoping for an early reply. Yours sincerely Sd/- Munish Chandra Agrawal 5. It has further been explained to this Court that it was not the rent which the petitioner had paid to the respondent no. 3 as indeed if anything was paid it was the retainership fee in pursuance of the fact that respondent no. 3 was a tax consultant for the petitioner. The petitioner is trying to explain what otherwise was rent but was not meant to be. 6. 3 as indeed if anything was paid it was the retainership fee in pursuance of the fact that respondent no. 3 was a tax consultant for the petitioner. The petitioner is trying to explain what otherwise was rent but was not meant to be. 6. It is difficult for this Court to accept the contention that the two courts below have gone wrong in not accepting the petitioner's plea that the plaint filed by the landlord be returned to a civil court so that the issue of title be debated, on whether the petitioner is owner by adverse possession or a tenant who would not pay rent. The petitioner has had the audacity to admit before this Court that he had occupied the property and it does not matter by what means and that he would not vacate it. The manner in which the property is occupied is a relevant consideration for the court or any court of equity. When the petitioner has come to this Court with unclean hands this court will not exercise its discretion in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No illegality has been committed by the two courts below in arriving at the assessment it has. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner had cited a decision of the Madras High Court in re : Prayag Dass Jeevaru v. Pachella Daraiswami Iyengar, AIR 1926 Madras 656. This decision does not aid the petitioner as the only point urged in the Letters Patent Appeal was that the suit was of a small cause nature and no second appeal lay as the amount of claim was less than Rs. 500/- Even in this case there was no doubt that even a Judge Small Causes is entitled to decide, if it arises incidentally, an issue of title. In the present writ petition it is not even the petitioner's case that he is owner of the property by a valid transfer. He nakedly admits that he walked into the property, and will not pay for the use of it or deliver it to its owner. It is a defence, incidently, when asked to pay rent or quit possession. The court of Judge Small Causes does not cease to be a court of equity. He nakedly admits that he walked into the property, and will not pay for the use of it or deliver it to its owner. It is a defence, incidently, when asked to pay rent or quit possession. The court of Judge Small Causes does not cease to be a court of equity. In the facts and circumstances of the present case it has the jurisdiction to question the petitioner, as a defendant, upon his status resting upon proof, with the property. 8. After the submissions had been closed on behalf of the petitioner and upon the observations of the Court as set in this order, a request was made that the writ petition be returned or dismissed as not pressed without a reasoned order. The submission on the face of it is not fair. The petition is, thus, dismissed but as no notice has been issued to the respondents there will be no order on costs. The two courts below are not aware of the fact that a petition had been filed. A copy of this order will be laid before the court of the Judge Small Causes in Small Cause Suit No. 370 of 1985 : Jagmandar Das Singhal, Advocate v. Ram Kishan Gupta, by the Registrar of this Court. Petition dismissed.