JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Heard Sri P.R.Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.D.Dube, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2. The respondents-landlord preferred SCC Suit No. 11 of 1998 for eviction of defendant-petitioner. The petitioner Smt. Tahira was impleaded as defendant no.2. The question was raised whether there existed relationship of tenant and landlord between plaintiff-respondents and defendant no.2 i.e. petitioner. The Trial Court decided this issue in favour of plaintiffs and against defendant no.2 holding that defendant no.2 is not tenant of plaintiffs and has failed to prove that she is tenant yet having said so, Trial Court decreed small cause suit against defendant no.2 vide judgment dated 25.11.2006. 3. The petitioner only disputed the fact that when it has held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and respondents. It is contended that once there was no relationship of landlord and tenant, eviction of petitioner amounts for delivery of possession to the plaintiff in a small cause suit which is not permissible since order of dispossession can be passed in a regular suit and not in small cause suit. 4. Sri S.D. Dube, learned counsel appearing for respondent on repeated query as to whether such eviction order could have been passed after holding that defendant no.2 was not tenant of plaintiff and relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist, to which he could not reply. In this view of the matter, in my view, decree of eviction granted against defendant no.2 is patently without jurisdiction. The Trial Court having said so, should have returned the plaint so that suit for delivery of possession in regular court should have been filed by plaintiff. 5. The writ petition is allowed to the extent that decree against petitioner is hereby set aside with clarification that it will not debar the plaintiff-owner to initiate regular proceedings for delivery of possession against petitioner.