Sanjay Misra,J. Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the revisionist and also Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties. Notice need not be issued to the proforma opposite parties. 2. This is a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the order dated 6.8.2013 passed in SCC suit No.21 of 2000: Saeed Aalam and others Vs. Kuldeep Rastogi and others by the Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Moradabad whereby the application paper No.223-C filed by the defendant no.2, revisionist, has been rejected. 3. The learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that there was a clear dispute with respect to the claim of rent between the plaintiff-respondents inter-se and therefore, the application was filed by the defendant no.2, revisionist, with respect to the rent which he is required to pay individually to the plaintiffs and also to the effect that the plaintiffs' title inter-se being in dispute the plaint be returned under section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 4. Sri Ramesh Singh has disputed the submission and has referred to the various paragraphs of written statement to state that there is no title dispute inter-se between the plaintiffs. The averments clearly indicate that the dispute is between the landlord and tenant and hence the dispute inter-se even if any does not come within the ambit of section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. He further states that there is no dispute of title inter-se between the plaintiff-respondents which is quite clear from the averments made in the written statement. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned order as also the written statement filed by the plaintiff-respondents, it is apparent that there is nothing in the written statement to indicate that there is a dispute of title between the plaintiffs and defendants-revisionists. In so far as the inter-se dispute with respect to rent between the plaintiffs is concerned, the written statement clearly indicates that there has been an apportionment and sale of the property and even in those circumstances the written statement alleges that the rent to be paid by the tenant is to be paid under the new arrangement to the plaintiffs inter-se. As such, the averments do not constitute any dispute of title either between the plaintiffs and defendant-revisionist or between the plaintiffs inter-se with respect to the property in question. 6. The impugned order has clearly recorded that the dispute is between landlord and tenant. No error can be found with the same and as such, the application paper No.223-C was rightly rejected by the Court below. 7. The revision has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. ________________