JUDGMENT Honble S.U. Khan, J.—This writ petition filed by the landlords was allowed by me on 10-4-2003. Thereafter re-hearing application was filed by the tenants-respondents on 27-1-2004. On 21-10-2005 arguments were heard on re-hearing application as well as writ petition. Delay in filing re-hearing application is condoned. Re-hearing application is allowed and judgment and order dated 10-4-2003 allowing the writ petition in the absence of respondents is set aside. 2. During pendency of re-hearing application I passed an order on 24-3-2004 staying the execution of decree. Thereafter on 8-7-2005 said stay order dated 24-3-2004 was modified and it was directed that tenant-respondent shall not be evicted provided that he deposited before JSCC an amount of Rs. 7,000/- by 7-8-2005 and continued to deposit Rs. 1,000/- per month thereafter with effect from August 2005 by 7th of each succeeding month. Thereafter on 24-8-2005 time to deposit the amount was extended till 28-9-2005. However, when matter was heard on 21-10-2005 it was stated by the landlords’ counsel that no amount was deposited by the tenant. Learned counsel for the tenant could not deny the said assertion. 3. This writ petition by the landlords arises out of suit for eviction filed by them against Ratan Lal since deceased and survived by respondents 2 to 6 and Smt. Kalawati respondent No. 7 (respondents 3 and 5 died during pendency of the writ petition and they were deleted from the array of the parties by order of Court dated 7-8-2002). According to the allegations contained in the plaint of the suit (SCC suit) No. 54 of 1986 petitioners purchased the property in dispute from its previous owners Ram Prasad and Kashi Ram through registered sale deed dated 5-12-1985, that Ratan Lal predecessor-in-interest of the defendants was tenant in the accommodation in dispute on behalf of previous owners and that Ratan Lal the tenant had not paid the rent to the petitioners since 16-2-1986. 4. In the suit petitioners-landlords filed copies of house tax assessment register wherein one of the sellers Ram Prasad was entered as owner. Plaintiffs produced one of their sellers i.e. Kashi Ram as their witness (Ram Prasad had died by then). Kashi Ram stated that he and his brother Ram Prasad were the owners landlords of the house in dispute and they had sold the same to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs produced one of their sellers i.e. Kashi Ram as their witness (Ram Prasad had died by then). Kashi Ram stated that he and his brother Ram Prasad were the owners landlords of the house in dispute and they had sold the same to the plaintiffs. Trial Court found that even though in the house tax records only the name of Ram Prasad was mentioned however he and Kashi Ram both were owners of the house in dispute. There is nothing wrong or uncommon about such entries. Even if name of some of the co-owners is mentioned in house tax records, it does not prove that they alone are the owners. In any case name of Ram Prasad was entered in the house tax register against house in dispute and Ram Prasad had also executed the sale deed. 5. It was also stated by the plaintiffs that after purchasing the property in dispute they permitted Ratan Lal to reside in the house as tenants and fresh rent note was executed by Ratan Lal on 16-1-1986. 6. The defendants asserted that they were not tenants but owners of the house in dispute. Defence of the tenants-respondents was struck off by the trial Court hence they did not adduce any evidence. The order of striking off the defence was affirmed in revision also. 7. Trial Court found that Ram Prasad and Kashi Ram were initially owners of the house in dispute and they had sold the same to plaintiffs and that Ratan Lal was tenant of the house in dispute since before its purchase by the plaintiffs. The default was admitted hence suit was decreed by JSCC, Jhansi through judgment and decree dated 5-8-1994. 8. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree original respondents 2 to 7 filed SCC revision No. 161 of 1994. IInd Addl. District Judge, Jhansi through judgment and order dated 12-2-1997 allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit hence this writ petition by landlord. 9. Revisional Court held that in the house tax assessment records only the name of Ram Prasad was mentioned hence Kashi Ram could not be the owner. Even if it is assumed that only Ram Prasad was the owner the sale deed remains quite valid as Ram Prasad also sold the house in dispute to the petitioners-plaintiffs. 9. Revisional Court held that in the house tax assessment records only the name of Ram Prasad was mentioned hence Kashi Ram could not be the owner. Even if it is assumed that only Ram Prasad was the owner the sale deed remains quite valid as Ram Prasad also sold the house in dispute to the petitioners-plaintiffs. Revisional Court further held that admittedly since before its purchase, Ratan Lal was in possession of the house in dispute hence he was either owner or had perfected his title through adverse possession. Absolutely no plea of adverse possession was taken by the defendants. As far as possession of the defendant is concerned, there was no doubt regarding that as the suit itself was filed for possession alleging in the plaint that defendants were tenants in possession. 10. Defence of the tenants had been struck off and the said order was not set aside by the revisional Court. Plaintiffs had fully proved their ownership and tenancy of Ratan Lal after his death of the defendants. Findings recorded by the trial Court were basically findings of fact. 11. It is also important to note that defendants were aware of the sale deed and they had given some notice and filed some complaints also regarding that sale deed. Suit was filed after about nine years of the sale deed. Defendants did not file any suit either for cancellation of the sale deed or for getting the same declared as null and void. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra v. Mohd. Sharif A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 636 that tenant cannot deny the title of his landlord and cannot also question the right of his landlord to transfer his (landlords) rights. 12. Accordingly, I find that judgment and order passed by the revisional Court is erroneous in law and liable to be set aside. 13. Petition is therefore, allowed. Judgment and order passed by the revisional Court is set aside. Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is restored. 14. The Supreme Court in Shamim Akhtar v. Iqbal Ahmad, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1 has held that question of title cannot finally be decided in a suit between landlord and tenant by JSCC. 13. Petition is therefore, allowed. Judgment and order passed by the revisional Court is set aside. Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is restored. 14. The Supreme Court in Shamim Akhtar v. Iqbal Ahmad, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1 has held that question of title cannot finally be decided in a suit between landlord and tenant by JSCC. However, JSCC is entitled to decide the question of title only incidentally and for the purposes of the suit in between alleged landlord and alleged tenant but such decision is subject to the decision of the regular civil Court : “The question of title of the plaintiff to the suit house could be considered by the Small Causes Court in the proceedings as an incidental question and final determination of the title could be left for decision of the competent Court.” (Para 12) 15. Accordingly, it is directed that contesting respondents are at liberty to initiate proceedings on the basis of title before regular civil Court. If such a suit is filed it shall be decided on the basis of evidence brought on record therein without being influenced by the judgment of the trial Court or this judgment through which judgment of the trial Court has been affirmed. Order Accordingly. ———