JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist. Despite notice none has appeared on behalf of the opposite party. 2. Vide order dated 06.07.2012 service of notice upon the opposite party was held to be sufficient and the matter was directed to proceed ex-parte. 3. By means of this revision, order dated 24.9.2011 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ex-cadre Court No.2 Manpuri passed in SCC Suit No.04 of 2011, is under challenge. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the plaintiff/revisionist has been non suited on the ground that the original sale-deed whereby she acquired title to the shop in question was not filed. 5. He submits that the original rent agreement between the landlord revisionist and her tenant-opposite party have been filed on record. Prior to filing of the suit, on 10.02.2011, notice has been served upon the tenant. He neither replied to the notice, nor, participated in the proceedings,even before the Trial Court. 6. It is submitted that the original sale-deed was of no consequence, as in summary proceedings for eviction and arrears of rent, the Small Cause Court is not competent to enter into the question of title. These proceedings are between the landlord and the tenant and this relationship alone is of any consequence. This relationship stood fully established by the original rent agreement between the parties which was filed and dully proved by the revisionist/plaintiff. 7. Besides the landlord tenant relationship between the parties was never denied as the tenant never appeared to contest the proceedings. 8. Even the service of notice upon the tenant was proved and yet both these aspects have been glossed over by the Court below only on the reasoning, that the original sale deed was not filed. It is therefore, contended that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity, warranting interference. 9. Upon hearing Counsel for the revisionist and upon perusal of the impugned order I find substance in the submissions that have been made. 10. In my considered opinion once the original lease agreement was available on record, the same should have necessarily formed the basis of the suit. 11. It is settled law that a landlord can file a suit for arrears of rent & eviction. There is no requirement under law that the suit should be filed by the owner of the premises in question. 11. It is settled law that a landlord can file a suit for arrears of rent & eviction. There is no requirement under law that the suit should be filed by the owner of the premises in question. A landlord is a person to whom rent is payable. He may not be the owner. 12. In such view of the matter, the order impugned cannot be sustained. 13. Accordingly the revision is allowed and the order dated 24.09.2011 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court to pass fresh orders on the merits of the case, in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. This exercise may be completed expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.