JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent caveator. 2. This petition is directed against a revisional order dated 18.2.2010 by which an order of the trial court returning the plaint for presentation before the regular court has been set aside and the matter has been remanded for trial. 3. It appears that the respondent landlord instituted Suit No. 43 of 1987 before the Judge Small Causes, Mathura with the allegation that he was the owner and landlord of a shop wherein the petitioner was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month but he defaulted in payment of rent from 1.2.1986 and despite a notice dated 31.3.1987 he neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises forcing him to file the said suit. 4. The petitioner contested the suit and in his written statement, he admitted the factum of tenancy of the respondent. During the pendency of the suit, he amended his written statement incorporating the fact that vide sale deed dated 31.3.2001 executed by Nagar Palika, Koshi Kalan he has become the owner of the land on which the shop existed and later vide a deed dated 9.7.2001 he had also purchased the construction from its erstwhile owner. After the amendment was allowed he made an application before the trial court under Section 23 of the Small Causes Courts Act praying that since a title dispute has arisen, the plaint may be returned for presentation before the regular civil court. The trial court allowed the application vide order dated 23.2.2004 but on a revision being filed by the respondent landlord, the same has been allowed which is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the court below fell into error in holding that when the tenancy had been acknowledged at the time of institution of the suit, without dispossession, the petitioner cannot question the title. In support thereof, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of D. Satyanarayana Vs. P. Jagdish [1987 (2) ARC 371]. 6. In support thereof, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of D. Satyanarayana Vs. P. Jagdish [1987 (2) ARC 371]. 6. This argument has been duly considered by the learned revisional court and after relying upon on several decisions of the Apex Court and this court and considering the effect of Section 16 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court held that there was no dispute at all when the petitioner was taken as a tenant in the disputed premises and now he would be estopped from challenging the title. In fact the revisional court has also considered the decision in D. Satyanarayana's case (supra) but the counsel for the petitioner has filed to point out that the case of the peitioner fell in any of the exceptions made by the Apex Court. It is also evident from the record that a title dispute between the parties is already pending. 7. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.