D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J. These two revisions can be disposed of, at the admission stage, through a common judgment. 2. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has been heard in both the revisions. 3. Civil Revision No. 453 of 1995 arises out of judgment and decree dated 30th May, 1995 of VIIIth Additional District Judge/judge Small Causes Court, Bareilly, granting a decree for eviction, arrears of rent, mesne profits etc. against the revisionist, whereas Civil Revision No. 370 of 1995 arises out of findings on two issue Nos. 5 and 7 in the aforesaid small cause suit given on 24th November, 1994. 4. The opposite-party filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-revisionist, alleging that the defendant was tenant in a portion of the house on monthly rent of Rs. 1000 besides other charges and taxes. His tenancy was determined through a notice and thereafter suit for eviction was filed. 5. The suit was contested on variety of grounds. It was denied that the plaintiff opposite-party is owner of the disputed house. On the other hand, the plea was that Avas Vikas Parishad is the owner of the house because no sale-deed was executed by Avas Vikas Parishad in favour of the plaintiff opposite- party. Consequently it was pleaded that Avas Vikas Parishad is a necessary party. Another consequential plea was that since the question of title is involved, the suit was not cognizable to Small Cause Court ; rather the plaint should have been returned for presentation before the competent civil court under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act. The relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by the revisionist. It was pleaded that the revisionist was licensee of the plaintiff opposite-party and was taking care of the property of the opposite party, who resided essentially at Delhi. Service of notice was not disputed. Notice was replied. 6. The court below framed nine issues. Issue Nos. 5 and 7 were decided as preliminary issues and against those findings Civil Revision No. 370 of 1995 was filed. Other issues were decided in the final judgment, out of which Civil Revision No. 453 of 1995 arises. 7. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has challenged mainly findings of lower court on issue Nos. 5 and 7. 8. Issue Nos. 5 and 7 were decided as preliminary issues and against those findings Civil Revision No. 370 of 1995 was filed. Other issues were decided in the final judgment, out of which Civil Revision No. 453 of 1995 arises. 7. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has challenged mainly findings of lower court on issue Nos. 5 and 7. 8. The finding of the court of small causes regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is a finding of fact, which can hardly be interfered in a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act. Such inter ference is possible only when such finding is perverse or is against the weight of evidence or the view taken by the court below is such, which no reasonable man, from the evidence on record, can take such a view. These conditions are not fulfilled in the instant revision. The lower court was rightly considered the evidence and come to the conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is established. It repelled the defendants plea that he was licensee of the plaintiff. 9. A suit for eviction of a tenant after termination of tenancy is cognizable by the Court of Small Causes. The jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes cannot be ousted on mere plea of the tenant that some body else is the owner of the house. The question of ownership or title in the demised property is foreign to the scope of such summary suit. It is only the relationship of landlord and tenant which is material and this relationship can be created by a person who is not full owner or absolute owner rather is inchoate owner upon whom complete title is conferred on a sub sequent date. 10. Avas Vikas Parishad generally constructs houses and allots it on certain conditions to the intending purchasers. Premium is charged and naturally some time is taken in the execution of the saledeed. It is informed that the allotment was made in favour of the plaintiff opposite-party on 12th June, 1978. The lower court has mentioned that the sale-deed was executed in favour of opposite-party by Avas Vikas Parishad on 1st February, 1993, whereas the suit was filed in 1990. When the suit was filed, the plaintiff was having inchoate title which was perfected during the pendency of the suit. The lower court has mentioned that the sale-deed was executed in favour of opposite-party by Avas Vikas Parishad on 1st February, 1993, whereas the suit was filed in 1990. When the suit was filed, the plaintiff was having inchoate title which was perfected during the pendency of the suit. Inchoate title of the plaintiff, on the date of the institution of the suit, for the reasons given above is immaterial. He succeeded in establishing that he had let out a portion of the house to the revisionist. Consequently there was no occasion for returning the plaint for presentation to the civil court. The provision of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, is, therefore, hardly attracted. 11. The next contention has been that Avas Vikas Parishad is a necessary party. Avas Vikas Parishad had already transferred the property in favour of the opposite-party through a registered sale deed dated 1st February, 1993. Consequently, Avas Vikas Parishad, when the suit was decided, was neither owner of the property nor landlord of the defendant-revisionist, as such Avas Vikas Parishad was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. 12. In view of the above findings, the findings of lower court on issue Nos. 1 to 3 do riot require any interference. 13. Since the opposite-party was landlord of the revisionist, he had right to institute the suit. Finding on issue No. 4 also does not require any interference. 14. Nothing was urged as to how the notice of eviction is invalid. 15. The revisionists plea of being licensee was rightly repelled by the lower court and as such findings on issue No. 8 also do not require any interference. 16. The findings regarding arrears of rent are also pure findings of fact which cannot be interfered in a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. 17. For the reasons given above, I do not find any merit in both the revisions which are hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed. .