JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal, J. The short question involved in this petition is as to whether in a suit for eviction filed by the lessor against his lessee, the court is obliged to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court, if the lessee denies the title of the lessor and sets up the title in himself? The opposite party no.3 claiming himself to be the owner and landlord of a shop situated on Hanmanbagh Chandra Shekhar Azad Marg Road, Churaha Unnao filed a suit against the tenant-petitioner with the allegation that the tenant-petitioner was a tenant of the said room on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. The tenant-petitioner did not pay any rent with effect from June 1987 and as such a notice in writing was issued to him demanding the arrears of rent and terminating his tenancy which was served upon him on 08.02.1992. The tenant-petitioner in spite of sufficient service of notice neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the shop in his occupation. 2. The tenant-petitioner contested the suit by filing the written statement and denying his status as tenant. He claimed that the room in his occupation was his ancestral property and the opposite party no.3 landlord had no concern with it. It was further stated in the written statement that the said room was not situated in Hanumanbagh. The tenant-petitioner further raised a plea that since the question of title was involved in suit, the court was not competent to entertain and hear the same. 3. The learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed three points of determination and on the basis of evidence of the parties, concluded that the opposite party no.3-landlord was the owner of the room in dispute and there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. With regard to the payment of rent, it was found that the tenant-petitioner had committed default in payment of rent and had also denied the title of his landlord. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the tenant-petitioner was liable to be evicted and consequently a decree for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent was passed. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the tenant-petitioner was liable to be evicted and consequently a decree for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent was passed. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the tenant-petitioner preferred SCC Revision No.9 of 2006 which was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 13.08.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Unnao. 5. I have heard Mohd. Sayeed II, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subhash Vidyarthi learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.3. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act gives a discretion to the court that in suits involving question of title, the Small Cause Courts may either decide the question of title or return the plaint for presentation to the proper court. It provides that when the right of a plaintiff and the relief claimed by him depends upon the proof or disproof of a title to immovable property or other title which such court cannot finally determine, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings return a plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. The submission on behalf of the tenant-petitioner is that the proceedings before the Small Causes Court are summary in nature in which the Court is not competent to decide the question of title. Since, the tenant-petitioner had denied the title of the landlord-opposite party no.3, and had claimed himself to be the owner, the only course open to the learned trial court was to return the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The learned trial court, however, ignoring the provision of Section 23 referred to above proceeded to determine the right and title of the landlord opposite party no.3 and without there being any evidence with regard to the tenancy, recorded a perverse finding that a relationship of land and tenant exists between the opposite party no.3 landlord and the tenant petitioner. The learned trial court, however, ignoring the provision of Section 23 referred to above proceeded to determine the right and title of the landlord opposite party no.3 and without there being any evidence with regard to the tenancy, recorded a perverse finding that a relationship of land and tenant exists between the opposite party no.3 landlord and the tenant petitioner. The learned revisional court also did not appreciate the fact that since the opposite party no.3 had claimed ownership of Hanumanbagh and it was a specific case of the tenant petitioner that the disputed room was not situated on Hanumanbagh, the Courts below without ascertaining as to whether the disputed room existed on the land belonging to Hanumanbagh, decreed the suit and the revisional court also dismissed the suit. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court towards the pleadings of the parties and in Para-1 of the plaint itself it was pleaded that landlord opposite party no.3 was the owner of a room situated on Hanumanbagh, Unnao. The tenant petitioner had specifically denied the averments made in the plaint and had made clear averments that the room in his occupation, was not situated in Hanumanbagh and as such the learned trial court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction without recording the clear finding to the effect that the disputed room was situated in Hanumanbagh. The learned counsel has also submitted that the decision of the suit was dependent upon the proof or disproof of the title of the landlord-opposite party no.3 and since the trial court was not competent to decide the complicated question of title, the learned court ought to have returned the plaint to the opposite party no.3 to be presented before the competent court. 7. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has relied upon a case reported in 2011 (3) ARC 161 = 2011 (89) ALR 166 . Bhagmani Devi (Mst.) Vs. VIIIth A.D.J. and another. In this case, this Hon'ble Court while relying upon the decision of the Apex Court has held that where the petitioner submitted that suit before the Small Causes Court cannot be allowed to proceed where intricate and complicated question of title is involved. Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, contemplates return of plaint where the relief claimed had been upon the proof and disproof of a title to an immovable property. 8. Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, contemplates return of plaint where the relief claimed had been upon the proof and disproof of a title to an immovable property. 8. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment reported in 1988 ARC (2) 260, Budhu Mal Vs. Mahabir Prasad and others, in this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act does not make it obligatory on the Court to invariably return the plaint once a question of title is raised by the tenant, but where in a suit instituted by the landlord against his tenant on the basis of contract of tenancy, a question of title could also incidentally be gone into and that any finding recorded by a Judge, Small Causes in this behalf could not be res judicata in a subsequent suit based on title. However, if in order to do justice between the parties, it is required to determine the title, the plaint should be returned for presentation to a court having jurisdiction. 9. Similar view has been expressed by this Hon'ble Court in the case reported in 1984 (1) ARC, 506 in which it has been held that if it is necessary for the court to determine the title, the plaint has to be returned for its presentation to the court having jurisdiction. If the court finds that the question of fact can not be answered in a summary way and elaborate enquiry is required, the court can permit the return of a plaint. 10. The learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has submitted that there was a specific denial of title by the tenant-petitioner and a decision had to be recorded by the trial court as to whether the disputed room was situated in Hanumanbagh or not, the court below ought to have returned the plaint for presentation to the court having jurisdiction because the Court of Small Cause was not competent to determine the title of the landlord-opposite party no.3. Both the courts have committed manifest error of law in passing the impugned judgment and decree without ascertaining as to whether the room in dispute was actually situated in Hanumanbagh or not. 11. Both the courts have committed manifest error of law in passing the impugned judgment and decree without ascertaining as to whether the room in dispute was actually situated in Hanumanbagh or not. 11. Sri Subhash Vidhyarthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord-opposite party no.3 has on the other hand argued that although Section 23 of Small Cause Courts Act empowers a court of Small Causes Court to return the plaint in case it finds itself unable to decide the question of title, but it has been held in several cases that in every case where the tenant denies the title of his landlord, the court should not return the plaint for presentation to the proper court. In this case also the tenant-petitioner although had denied the title of the landlord, but he did not disclose as to how he became owner of the room in his occupation. No evidence was also led by him to even prima facie show his title. Both the courts below have recorded a specific finding that there exits relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This finding of fact is based on appraisal of evidence and this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not disturb the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by both the courts below. 12. He has relied upon a decision reported in 2002 (20) LCD 910 in which it has been held that merely because an objection has been raised that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it can not be held that the suit is barred by Section 23. The aforesaid position of law is based on a Supreme Court decision reported in 1988 AWC page 1057 in which it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a suit instituted by the landlord against his tenant on the basis of contract of tenancy, a question of title could also incidentally be gone into and that any finding recorded by a Small Causes Court could not be res judicata in a subsequent suit based on title. 13. On a reading of Sub-Section (1) of Section 23, it is apparent that the discretion has been conferred on the court to return the plaint if it is satisfied that a question of title is involved in the suit which it can not finally determine. 13. On a reading of Sub-Section (1) of Section 23, it is apparent that the discretion has been conferred on the court to return the plaint if it is satisfied that a question of title is involved in the suit which it can not finally determine. It is only in such a situation that it is open to the court to return the plaint. A mere allegation in the written statement that the title vests in a defendant, is by itself not sufficient to establish that the question of title is involved in a suit. Only after the evidence has been produced and the court is of the opinion that a question of title is involved in a suit which the Court of Small Causes can not determine, it is open to the court to return the plaint. 14. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that on the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court has recorded a specific finding that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned revisional court has confirmed this finding for the simple reason that the tenant-petitioner did not give any evidence as to how he became the owner of the disputed room. The argument of the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner that he was not required to give any evidence with regard to his title and it was for the landlord-opposite party no.3 to prove his title, has no force because it was only after the evidence of the parties that the court had to take a decision whether it was competent to decide the title of the landlord or not. Since in the present case the tenant-petitioner did not give any evidence to show as to how he became the owner of the disputed room, the courts below on the basis of evidence given by the landlord-opposite party no.3 came to the conclusion that the opposite party no.3 was the landlord of the disputed room and the petitioner was the tenant in respect of the said room. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash reported in (2004) 3 SCC, 682= 2004 (55) ALR 319 (SC)=2004 (17) AIC 51. has clearly held that the High Court can not like an appellate court and re-appreciate or re-valuate the evidence while exercising original or supervisory jurisdiction. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash reported in (2004) 3 SCC, 682= 2004 (55) ALR 319 (SC)=2004 (17) AIC 51. has clearly held that the High Court can not like an appellate court and re-appreciate or re-valuate the evidence while exercising original or supervisory jurisdiction. Only a patent error, which does not require establishment by lengthy and complicated arguments or by long drawn process of reasoning, is amenable to certiorari jurisdiction. If the finding is based on the consideration of relevant factor and is not perverse, the High Court can not interfere with the judicial order while exercising writ jurisdiction. 16. After considering the evidence on record carefully and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments and decree passed by both the courts below. 17. In view of this in my opinion, no error of law can be said to have been committed either by the trial court or by the revisional court. The writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tenant-petitioner is allowed two months' time to vacate the premises in his occupation and pay upto date arrears of rent to the opposite party no.3-landlord. In case he fails to do so, the opposite party no.3-landlord shall be free to execute the decree in accordance with law.