JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri G.K. Gupta has appeared for respondent no. 3 but has not filed counter affidavit since 2008. 2. Respondent no. 3 filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction against the petitioners. In the said suit petitioners moved an application under Section 23 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 contending that the suit involves a question of title which can not be decided in a summary proceedings. Therefore, the plaint be returned to the civil court. The application has been rejected vide order dated 21.9.2007 and the order has been upheld by the revisional court vide judgment and order dated 26.2.2008. Hence, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the above two orders. 3. The submission of Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent no. 3 had purchased only part of the property and not the portion in which the petitioners are the tenants. Secondly, petitioners themselves have purchased part of the portion in their tenancy from the heirs of one of the co-owners and in respect of another portion of it a suit for specific performance is pending. 4. Respondent no. 3 in the plaint has clearly pleaded that he has purchased part of the property including the porition in which the petitioners are the tenants from the erstwhile owners vide registered sale deeds dated 16.1.1994 and 24.5.1994 and as such he is now the owner and landlord of the disputed portion. 5. Section 23 of the Act provides that where the relief claimed by the party before the Small Causes Court depends upon the proof or disproof of title of movable property which the Court can not finally determine, it may return the plaint to be presented to the Court of proper jurisdiction to determine the title. 6. The use of the word 'may' in Section 23 of the Act is indicative of the fact that it confers a discretion upon the court to return the plaint or not. It does not make it obligatory upon the Court to return the plaint once a question of title is raised by the tenant in a suit for eviction. 7. The use of the word 'may' in Section 23 of the Act is indicative of the fact that it confers a discretion upon the court to return the plaint or not. It does not make it obligatory upon the Court to return the plaint once a question of title is raised by the tenant in a suit for eviction. 7. In a suit for eviction of the tenant, the lis between the parties is ordinarily decided on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant and in deciding the said relationship the Court is not precluded from going into the question of title incidentally but any finding regarding title recorded therein does not operate as res-judicata in a suit based upon the title. 8. The plaint is ordered to be returned under Section 23 of the Act in a very clear case of involvement of title and a plaint can not be directed to be returned on the basis of the plea that the tenant has set up title in himself vide AIR 1990 Alld. 112 Babu Khan Vs. Smt. Chahti Devi. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, if the court has refused to return the plaint holding that the suit does not involve any intricate question of title, it is not a case for interference in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction at this interlocutory stage and in case the suit is decided on the basis of the findings of title, the same can be challenged by the aggrieved party by taking a ground in filing a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 after the decision of the suit. 10. The writ petition as such lacks merit and is dismissed with direction to the Small Cause Court to proceed and decide the suit in accordance with law on consideration of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as expeditiously as possible curtailing all unnecessary adjournments and fixing short and quick dates.