JUDGMENT Dinesh Gupta, J. This civil revision is preferred against the order dated 31.5.2007 passed by learned Judge Small Causes Court/Upper District Judge, Court No.4 (F.T.C.), J.P. Nagar in Suit No.3 of 2002 (Smt. Mithlesh and others vs. Shaukeen) decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. The brief facts, which give rise to this revision are that: - The plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter referred to as "respondents") filed a suit against defendant-revisionist (hereinafter referred to as "revisionist"). The suit was registered as Suit No.3 of 2002 and was transferred to the Court of Judge Small Causes/Upper District Judge (F.T.C.). 3. The respondent's case in brief are that : The respondent was owner and landlord of property in dispute and earlier Shri Jai Kishan Singhal was the owner and landlord of house in suit, who remained owner and landlord during his life time and after his death, the respondents are his legal heirs and they became landlord and owner of the property in dispute. The house in question was let out to the revisionist at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month and revisionist was continuously paying the rent to father of respondents and after his death to the respondents. The revisionist has stopped paying rent since 1.11.2000 and rent against the revisionist is due from 1.11.2000 when revisionist refused to pay the rent, the respondents served a notice dated 10.9.2002 and terminated the tenancy of the revisionist and also demanded the arrears of rent. The revisionist neither paid the rent nor vacated the house then respondents filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent. Respondents, however, contended that he purchased the house in question from Shri Jai Kishan Singhal in the year 1995 after paying the mount of Rs.1,10,000/-. Although, he remained tenant of the property in dispute since 1985 to 1995 and when sale-deed has been executed in his favour, he stopped the payment. Respondents clearly denied the execution of such sale-deed by father of the revisionist. Revisionist filed written statement and submitted that respondents have no right to maintain the suit. Revisionist has already instituted a suit in Court of Civil Judge (Senior Divison) on 27.8.2002, which was registered as O.S. No.246 of 2002 in which he stated that a unregistered sale-deed has been executed on 15.11.1995 by father of respondents after taking Rs. Revisionist filed written statement and submitted that respondents have no right to maintain the suit. Revisionist has already instituted a suit in Court of Civil Judge (Senior Divison) on 27.8.2002, which was registered as O.S. No.246 of 2002 in which he stated that a unregistered sale-deed has been executed on 15.11.1995 by father of respondents after taking Rs. 1,10,000/- and father of respondents delivered possession of the property to the revisionist and revisionist is in continuous possession over the property in dispute. Revisionist is also entitled to Rs.20,000/- as special costs from the respondents. 4. Learned trial court has framed following points for consideration: 1.Whether the respondents are owner of property in dispute and revisionist is tenant at the rate of rent mentioned in plaint ? 2.Whether the respondents have committed default in payment of rent ? 3.Whether the respondents are entitled to claim for rent or damages of house in occupation and possession from the revisionist ? 5. Learned trial court has recorded a categorical finding on Issue No.1 and held that respondents are the owner and landlord over the property in dispute and revisionist is the tenant of respondents. 6. While deciding Issue No.2, the trial court held that revisionist has committed default in payment of rent and taken into consideration the finding recorded on Issue Nos. 1 and 2, the Court decided the Issue No.3 in favour of respondents and decreed the suit of the respondents for ejectment as well as for recovery of rent. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has preferred this revision before this Court. 8. At the time of filing of revision, the Court directed that revisionist shall not be evicted till the next date of listing. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of admission. Both counsels agreed that revision itself be decided at this admission stage. 10. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that: Trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as there was a dispute with respect to the ownership of house in view of Section 23 of U.P. Small Causes Courts Act. The Court has no jurisdiction to enter into the question of ownership between the parties. The court below has illegally exercised its jurisdiction in considering the finding that there could be no transfer of property by means of a unregistered sale-deed. The Court has no jurisdiction to enter into the question of ownership between the parties. The court below has illegally exercised its jurisdiction in considering the finding that there could be no transfer of property by means of a unregistered sale-deed. The revisionist has already filed a suit, which was pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), and as such, the trial court has no jurisdiction to enter into the question of ownership, which are only to be decided by the civil court. Respondents have never denied the execution of deed in favour of revisionist by the father of the respondents. The Court has illegally enter into the question of title and decided the ownership of property in suit in favour of respondents. The order passed by the trial court is without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside and the suit of the respondents deserves to be dismissed. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that order passed by the court below is legal and Court has jurisdiction to decide the same. Admittedly, the respondents were the owner and landlord of the property in dispute. They let out the same to the revisionist at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month. This fact has not been denied by the revisionist. It is also not denied that after 1995, the revisionist paid the rent. It is the case of the respondents that after the death of their father, the respondents started paying rent to them and he paid the rent to them till 31.10.2000 and all of sudden he refused to pay the same. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that there was no question of involvement of any title. Admittedly, Jai Kishan Singhal was the owner of property in dispute. An unregistered deed does not confer any right or title or interest on the revisionist and on the basis of said deed, the revisionist cannot claim any ownership over the property in dispute. Trial court has rightly held that alleged unregistered sale-deed will be of no use of revisionist, who admitted that he was the tenant of Jai Kishan Singhal and paid rent to him. 13. Trial court has rightly held that alleged unregistered sale-deed will be of no use of revisionist, who admitted that he was the tenant of Jai Kishan Singhal and paid rent to him. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that even the original sale-deed has not been filed by the revisionist and only photostat copy of the same was filed, which was not admissible for evidence and the Court has rightly ignored the same. The order passed by the trial court is legal and Court has jurisdiction to pass the same. Hence, the revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 14. I am unable to accept the contention raised by learned counsel for the revisionist. 15. Admittedly, the property in dispute was owned by one Jai Kishan Singhal, who let out the same to the revisionist at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month as rent and the revisionist started paying rent to Jai Kishan Singhal and admitted as owner and landlord of Jai Kishan Singhal. 16. The contention of revisionist is that he purchased the property in the year 1995 from Jai Kishan Singhal, was not accepted by the trial court on the ground that deed by which the revisionist alleged to have purchased the property in question was a unregistered document, which is neither admissible for evidence nor any right title or interest by said sale-deed was ever conferred upon the revisionist. Further, the revisionist has also not filed the original copy of sale-deed. 17. The revisionist raised argument that Judge Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to decide the title suit and Court ought to have returned the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. It is necessary to reproduce Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as follows: 23. Return of plaints in suits involving questions of title.--(1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing portion of this Act, when the right of a plaintiff and the relief claimed by him in a Court of Small Causes depend upon the proof or disproof of a title to immovable property or other title which such a Court cannot finally determine, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings return the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. (2) When a Court returns a plaint under sub-section (1), it shall comply with the provisions of the second paragraph of section 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure and make such order with respect to costs as it deems just, and the Court shall, for the purposes of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877, be deemed to have been unable to entertain the suit by reason of a cause of a nature like to that of defect of jurisdiction. Further, the jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes Court defined in Section 15 of the said Act, which reads as under: JURISDICTION OF COURTS OF SMALL CAUSES 15 Cognizance of suits by Courts of Small Causes.-- (1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the second schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. (2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed [two thousand] rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. Provided that in relation to suits by the lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease or for recovery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease, or of compensation for use and occupation thereof after the determination of the lease, the reference in this subsection to five thousand rupees shall be construed as a reference to twenty-five thousand rupees. 18. Further, the revisionist has also taken a plea that he purchased the property from predecessor of present respondents vide a sale-deed. Admittedly, the said deed was unregistered sale-deed. 19. Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act,1882 provides as follows: 54. "Sale" defined.--''''Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made.--Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale.--A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. 20. Now in the light of above said provisions, the Court has proceeded with the argument set-up by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 21. Learned counsel for the revisionist has admitted that he purchased the property in dispute from predecessor of respondents. The said deed was a unregistered sale-deed. Although, the revisionist has not filed the original copy of deed and only filed photostat copy of deed. 22. In view of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, in the case of tangible immovable property, the property of a value exceeding than hundred rupees compulsory by legislature while in the present case, the deed is not registered one neither the original deed is before this Court only a photostat copy of deed is not admissible for evidence. 23. So far as the argument regarding Section 23 of Small Causes Courts Act is concerned, the said Section clearly held that when relief claimed by plaintiff upon the proof or disproof of a title to immovable property or other title, which such a Court cannot finally determine, the Court may at any state of the proceedings return the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. 24. The main ground taken by the revisionist is that he has also filed a suit, which is pending before Civil Judge (Senior Division), the Court has wrongly decided the present suit without final outcome of the suit filed by the revisionist. 25. The argument of learned counsel for the revisionist has no force. 26. First of all, the suit filed by revisionist was only for grant of injunction. Secondly, in that suit, the revisionist has clearly stated that he purchased the property. 25. The argument of learned counsel for the revisionist has no force. 26. First of all, the suit filed by revisionist was only for grant of injunction. Secondly, in that suit, the revisionist has clearly stated that he purchased the property. However, the deed on which he claimed title, is a unregistered deed, which will not confer any right title on the revisionist. Thirdly, the suit pending before Judge Small Cause Court was based on contract of tenancy. Admittedly, the revisionist was a tenant and predecessor of respondent and after his death, the respondents were landlord and owner of the property in dispute. 27. Revisionist has not denied the contract of tenancy. His only defence is that he got executed a sale-deed, which confer no right or title upon him. Further, the Court has proceeded on the basis of contract of tenancy and tenancy has been terminated by landlord by giving a proper notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. 28. Section 23 of the said Act itself says that finding recorded by Small Causes Court will not operate as res-judicata. The Court has not decided any right title between the parties and simply relied upon the contract of tenancy and after giving categorical finding on the question of default, decreed the suit of the respondents for eviction and for arrears of rent. 29. Thus, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist has no force. 30. No other point has been advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 31. The revision lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly.