Dilip Gupta, J.: - The tenant has filed this petition for quashing the judgment dated 8th February, 2011 passed by the Court of Small Causes by which SCC Suit No. 118 of 2008 filed by the landlord for eviction of the petitioner and for payment of arrears of rent was decreed. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 15th November, 2011 by which the Revision filed by him for setting aside the aforesaid judgment was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff-respondent-landlord filed SCC Suit No.118 of 2008 for eviction and payment of arrears of rent treating herself to be the landlord on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 12th May, 2006. It was stated that rent from 12th May 2006 was not paid to her by the petitioner-tenant despite repeated notices. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendant-tenant. It was denied that the plaintiff-respondent was the landlord and it was asserted that the landlord was the Waqf Board, to whom the petitioner had been paying rent. It was, therefore, stated that the plaint was required to be returned under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 to be presented before the appropriate Court having jurisdic­tion to determine the title. The Court of Small Causes did not accept the plea of the petitioner-tenant that the defendant-respondent was not the landlord and as there was default in payment of rent, the suit was decreed. The Revisional Court has confirmed this finding. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a tenant of the Waqf Board and, therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that she was a landlord, was not correct and when a title dispute arose, it was necessary for the Court of Small Causes to return the plaint, but that was not done. It is also his contention that the rent note on which reliance was placed by the Court below to hold that the petitioner was a tenant did not contain the signature of the petitioner and, therefore, the finding is perverse. 5. It is not possible to accept the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is also his contention that the rent note on which reliance was placed by the Court below to hold that the petitioner was a tenant did not contain the signature of the petitioner and, therefore, the finding is perverse. 5. It is not possible to accept the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Court of Small Causes and the Revisional Court have, on a consideration of the documents available on record, recorded a categorical finding of fact that the plaintiff became the landlord in view of the registered sale deed and despite service of notice on the tenant, rent was not paid. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate that this finding is perverse. The registered sale deed in favour of the landlord was brought on record by the plaintiff-respondent on the basis of which she became the tenant. Merely because the tenant disputed the sale deed will not give rise to a title dispute for return of the plaint under Section 23 of the Act. 7. The finding recorded by the Court of Small Causes and the Revisional Court that the rent had not been paid by the petitioner-tenant does not suffer from any illegality as it is admitted to the petitioner that the rent was not paid to the plaintiff for the reason that plaintiff was not the landlord. 8. In such circumstances, the judgment of the Court of Small Causes as well as the Revisional Court do not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Consti­tution. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 9. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that some time may be given to the tenant to vacate the premises in dispute. 10. Learned Counsel for the landlord has stated that the landlord has no objection to some reasonable time being granted. 11. The tenant is, accordingly, granted time upto 31 st March, 2012 to handover the peaceful possession of the shop to the landlord subject to the tenant giving an undertaking within two weeks from today before the Prescribed Authority to the fol­lowing effect :- 1. That the tenant shall handover peaceful possession of the shop to the land­lord on or before the 31st March, 2012. 2. That the tenant shall handover peaceful possession of the shop to the land­lord on or before the 31st March, 2012. 2. That the tenant shall pay damages at the rate of Rs.200/- per month up to the date he hands-over the possession of the shop to the landlord. 3. That the tenant shall not induct any other person in the shop. 12. It is made clear that in the event the tenant fails to give the undertaking within the aforesaid period or fails to comply with any of the terms of the undertaking, it will be open to the landlord to get the decree executed. 13. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Petition dismissed.