Sibghat Ullah Khan,J. Heard Sri D.C. Mukherji, learned counsel for tenant petitioner and Sri R.K. Tripathi, learned counsel contesting respondents. 2. Through the impugned order, application of tenant petitioner for return of the plaint filed under Section 23 of Provincial Small Causes of Courts Act has been rejected. 3. Contesting respondents No.3 to 6, Ram Saran Shukla and others claiming to be landlords of the accommodation in dispute instituted a suit for eviction against the original petitioner Surendra Mohan Srivastava (since deceased and survived by legal representatives) claiming that he was their tenant in the accommodation in dispute in the form of S.C.C. Suit No.31 of 1989, Ram Saran Shukla and others Vs. Surendra Mohan Srivastava. In the said suit, petitioner filed application under Section 23 of P.S.C.C. Act, which was rejected on 21.04.1993 by J.S.C.C., Sitapur. Against the said order, petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No.17 of 1993. A.D.J. Court No.4, Sitapur dismissed the revision on 18.09.1993, hence this writ petition. 4. According to the landlords respondents initially Smt. Makhola was the owner of the property in dispute, who had purchased it through registered sale deed dated 15.11.1954; thereafter, Smt. Makhola sold the property to Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of respondent No.3, Ram Saran Shukla, mother of respondents No.4 to 6 on 16.10.1979 through registered sale deed and after the death of Smt. Shanti Devi, respondents No.3 to 6 became owners landlords of the same. 5. The tenant pleaded that original owner of the house in dispute was Sri Lakhan Singh, who executed a Will of the same in favour of the petitioner. It was further asserted by the petitioner that Smt. Makhola sold the property to Smt. Shanti Devi claiming that she (Smt. Makhola) was widow of Lakhan Singh and had inherited the property in dispute from him, however Smt. Makhola was not wife of Lakhan Singh and Lakhan Singh was unmarried and Smt. Makhola was a Muslim, hence she could not be wife of Lakhan Singh, who was thakur. The stand taken by the petitioner was utterly unwarranted rather dishonest. Smt. Makhola had not inherited the property from Lakhan Singh or any one else. She had purchased it through registered sale deed dated 15.11.1954. Moreover, extracts of municipal board records pertaining to the house tax of the house in dispute were filed before the trial court by the landlords. The stand taken by the petitioner was utterly unwarranted rather dishonest. Smt. Makhola had not inherited the property from Lakhan Singh or any one else. She had purchased it through registered sale deed dated 15.11.1954. Moreover, extracts of municipal board records pertaining to the house tax of the house in dispute were filed before the trial court by the landlords. In the extracts the name of respondents No.3 to 6 was entered as owner and of the petitioner as tenant and rate of rent was mentioned as Rs.40/- per month. This position was there in the house tax records of 1970 and 1975 as well as 1986-1991 (number of the house is 100). 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon Budhumal Vs. Mahbir Prasad, AIR 1988 SC 1772 . The said authority was cited before the courts below also. In the said authority, it was found that in fact a complicated question of title was involved. In the instant case, absolutely no question of title let alone complicated question of title is involved. 7. Rate of rent according to para-7 of the plaint is Rs.100/- per month. In para-19 of the written statement, it was stated that Lakhan Singh on 15.08.1975 executed a Will deed in favour of the petitioner tenant. As the property was purchased by Smt. Makhola through registered sale deed in 1954, hence Lakhan had no concern with the same, hence even if he executed any Will it was meaningless. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed. 8. Firstly petitioner has not admittedly paid any rent since the date on which Smt. Shanti Devi purchased the property. Secondly, Rs.100/- per month rent for a house is utterly inadequate. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 9. It is directed that the suit shall be decided very expeditiously. It is further directed for the period during which writ petition remained pending and proceedings of the suit stayed, i.e. from 04.10.1993 till date petitioner shall be liable to pay rent/ damages for use and occupation of the house in dispute at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month. 9. It is directed that the suit shall be decided very expeditiously. It is further directed for the period during which writ petition remained pending and proceedings of the suit stayed, i.e. from 04.10.1993 till date petitioner shall be liable to pay rent/ damages for use and occupation of the house in dispute at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month. If the suit is decreed, then w.e.f. the date of the decree, trial court shall direct the tenant to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of rent prevalent for such type of house at the time of the decree or it could be taken to be 1/120 of market value of the house at that time. Rent at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month from 04.10.1993 till date shall be included in the decree. 10. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with the above direction. _______________