JUDGMENT : K.S. HEMALEKHA, J. 1. The present petition by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 01.07.2022 in S.C. No. 36/2012 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, whereby the application I.A. No. I filed by the respondent No. 3-defendant No. 3 under Section 21 read with 151 of CPC was allowed and directed the office to return the plaint to the plaintiff to present the same before the competent Civil Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed suit for ejectment directing the defendants to handover vacant possession of the suit property, arrears of rent and for mesne profits. 3. It is stated by the plaintiff that the plaintiff-Trust is a public religious and charitable Trust and owner of the suit schedule property. The defendants are the lessee and the tenancy commences from first of each calendar month and that defendant No. 2 has executed an agreement dated 02.08.1994. Since the defendants did not vacate the suit schedule property and are in arrears of rent, the quit notice was issued to dependent Nos. 1 and 2 terminating the tenancy rights and defendant Nos. 3 to 5 claim themselves to be the sub-tenants of the suit schedule property. 4. The defendant No. 3 filed his written statement contending that the said Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and contended that the permanent tenant Ramprasad Chinnuprasad Dube was the permanent tenant and had sold his lease-hold rights by way of a registered deed in favour of Ambasa Annasa Habib, who in turn has leased the property to Anavasu Baddi the father of defendant No. 3 and certain portions to the father of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 and contended that they are the tenants under Ambasa Annasa Habib. 5. Defendant No. 3 contended that the eviction proceedings have been initiated against these defendants in HRC No. 51/1967, HRC No. 201/1974 and Misc. No. 21/1979 and other proceedings which came to be dismissed. As such, it is contended that the suit is hit by the principles of res judicata and the plaintiffs have lost rights over the property under section 27 of the Limitation Act and sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. No. 21/1979 and other proceedings which came to be dismissed. As such, it is contended that the suit is hit by the principles of res judicata and the plaintiffs have lost rights over the property under section 27 of the Limitation Act and sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. During the pendency of the said suit defendant No. 3 filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for return of plaint and also application under Section 21 read with 151 CPC was filed contending that the Small Causes Court does not have jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial Court after hearing the parties by its order dated 6.7.2015 held that the applications have to be heard along with the main as against this order defendant No. 3 approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition No. 109633-34/2015 and the said writ petitions came to be disposed of on 10.03.2017 directing the trial Court to consider the question of jurisdiction as preliminary issue and pass appropriate orders in that regard. 7. The trial Court by its order dated 11.11.2021 rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC with cost of Rs. 500/-. However, the application filed by defendant No3 under Section 21 read with 151 CPC was not disposed of by the trial Court. Defendant No. 3 again approached this Court in W.P. No. 10093/2022 and this Court after hearing the parties directed the trial Court to pass orders on the issue of jurisdiction. Puruant to which the trial Court having heard the learned counsel for the parties allowed the application filed by defendant No. 3 under Section 21 and Section 151 CPC. 8. The trial court by its impugned order has held that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to try the said suit and directed the plaint to be returned to be presented before the jurisdictional Civil Court by its order dated 1.7.2022. Aggrieved by which the present petition by the plaintiff. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 10. Aggrieved by which the present petition by the plaintiff. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 10. Learned counsel, Sri S.A. Sondur appearing for the petitioner would contend that the application filed by defendant No. 3 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC had been considered and the application was rejected and the Small Causes Court holding that the suits of simple nature are only triable and disputes regarding title are not involved and cannot be tried by the Small Causes Court is contrary to the material on record. Learned counsel would contend that the only contention of defendant Nos. 3 to 5 is that they have been inducted by one Ramprasad Chinnuprasad Dube and the perusal of the pleadings would evidence that there is no denial of title of the Trust in whatsoever manner. Learned counsel would further contend that mere denial of jural relationship of landlord and tenant in his written statement by itself cannot be a ground to hold that the Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Abdul Wajid vs. A.S. Onkarappa, 2011 (2) AIR Kar. R. 78. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent-defendant No. 3 would justify the order of the trial Court and contend that the dispute involved are complicated question of law and fact which only can be decided by the competent civil Court with original jurisdiction and as such, the Small Causes Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 12. This Court has carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 13. The plaintiff-petitioner filed suit for ejectment in respect of the suit schedule property contending that the defendants are lessee of the suit schedule property and termination notice was issued to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 terminating their tenancy and calling upon them to pay the arrears of rent, since defendant Nos. 3 to 5 claimed to be the sub-tenants, notice was also issued to them and called upon to handover the vacant possession of the suit property. 1 and 2 terminating their tenancy and calling upon them to pay the arrears of rent, since defendant Nos. 3 to 5 claimed to be the sub-tenants, notice was also issued to them and called upon to handover the vacant possession of the suit property. The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed seeking for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Court does not have jurisdiction as also an application under Section 21 read with Section 151 CPC. Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was rejected and the application impugned in the order dated 01.07.2022 was kept in abeyance and in light of the order passed in W.P. No. 100953/2022, the application under Section 21 read with Section 151 CPC was considered and the Small Causes Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit and directed the plaint to be returned. The plaintiff specifically contended and produced Ex.P-6 to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant and defendant No. 3 has disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant, but however, contended in his written statement that he is a sub-lessee under defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 3 has not denied the jural relationship of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 3 who is claiming to be a sub-tenant cannot interfere with the admitted jural relationship of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2. A person claiming to be the landlord may sue against a tenant for possession of a building on the ground specified in the Rent Act. Such a suit will have to be brought in the Court of Small Cause. If ultimately the Court finds that if the plaintiff is not a tenant, the suit will fail for that reason. If the suit is instituted in the ordinary civil court instead of the Court of Small Causes, the plaint will have to be returned irrespective of the plea of the defendant so the question whether there is a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties or such other jurisdictional questions may have to be determined by the Court where it falls for determination. Merely on the plea of the defendant that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes cannot be ousted. Merely on the plea of the defendant that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes cannot be ousted. The suit for ejectment is cognizable by the Court of Small Causes as provided under Article 4 of the Schedule. Article 4 of the Schedule of the Karnataka Court of Small Causes Act reads as under: “SCHEDULE SUITS EXCEPTED FROM THE COGNIZANCE OF COURT OF SMALL CAUSES [See Section 8] xxx xxx xxx (4) a suit for the possession of immovable property or for the recovery of an interest in such property but not including a suit for ejectment where: (a) the property has been let under a lease or permitted to be occupied, by a written instrument or orally. (b) the Court of Small Causes would be competent to take cognizance of a suit for the rent of the property. (c) the only substantial issue arising for the decision is as to whether the lease has been determined by efflux of the time limited thereby or has been determined by a notice in accordance with the law for the time being in force in respect of such lease, or the permission to occupy has been withdrawn.” 14. Defendant No. 3 does not dispute the title of the petitioner-plaintiff, but claims to be a sub-tenant and the Small Causes Court even without any material placed by defendant No. 3 to show that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property ought not to have allowed the application filed under Section 21 on the premise that it lacks jurisdiction. The Full Bench of this Court in Abdul Wajid stated supra at Para No. 99 reads as under: “99. There is one other aspect which requires to be clarified. The Full Bench of this Court in Abdul Wajid stated supra at Para No. 99 reads as under: “99. There is one other aspect which requires to be clarified. In couple of decisions it has been observed that though the general principle is that the jurisdiction of the Court shall be determined by the averment in the plaint, Article 4 of KSCC Act makes a departure from this general principle and the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes to try the suit for ejectment is made dependent on the contentions raised in the written statement and at the will of the defendant and in the written statement if the defendant were to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant, denies the title or take any other plea which gives rise to issue other than the one mentioned in clause (c) of “Article 4, the Small Causes Court has to return the plaint for presentation before the Civil Court for adjudication. No doubt, as per clause (c) of Article 4 the only substantial issue to be considered is whether the lease has been determined by efflux of time or has been determined by a notice, or the permission to occupy has been withdrawn. If the right of a plaintiff and the relief claimed by him in a Court of Small Causes depend upon the proof or disproof of title to immovable property or other title in the light of the contentions raised by the defendant in his written statement, certainly the Court acting under Section 16 of KSCC Act plaint for presentation to proper Court. However, mere denial of jural relationship of landlord and tenant by the defendant in his written statement though the lease is evidenced by itself cannot be a ground to hold that the Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction. In such event, as an incidental question the Court has to find out whether the property had been let under lease or permitted to be occupied by a Written instrument or orally as stated in Clause (a) and for that C pose the plaintiff has to be afforded opportunity to place evidence.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. In such event, as an incidental question the Court has to find out whether the property had been let under lease or permitted to be occupied by a Written instrument or orally as stated in Clause (a) and for that C pose the plaintiff has to be afforded opportunity to place evidence.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. The Full Bench of this Court has categorically held that mere denial of jural relationship of landlord and tenant by the defendant in his written statement though the lease is evidenced by the document, by itself cannot be a ground to hold that the Court of Small Causes lacks jurisdiction. The Small Causes Court without considering that there is no actual dispute between landlord and tenant and defendant No. 3 claiming to be a sub-tenant cannot have a better right than the tenant who are defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The manner in which the defendant No. 3 is protracting the proceeding by filing earlier application under Order VII Rule 11 and then approaching this court and again filing another writ petition when an order on the application under Section 21 CPC was not passed, defendant No. 3 has gone to the extent of filing frivolous application being a sub-tenant having no locus-standi. The reasoning of the Small Causes Court in allowing the application filed by defendant No. 3 under Section 21 is not sustainable for the reasons stated supra and the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the registered rental agreement produced by the plaintiff-Trust reveal the relationship of lessor and lessee and in light of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, the Court of Small Causes was not justified in allowing the application and directing return of plaint. The suit has been properly instituted in the Court of Small Causes and it cannot be said that the Court of Small Causes would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following: ORDER: (i) The civil revision petition filed by the plaintiff is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment dated 01.07.2022 in S.C. No. 36/2012 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi is hereby set aside and I.A. No. I filed by defendant No. 3 under Section 21 read with Section 151 CPC is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. (ii) The impugned judgment dated 01.07.2022 in S.C. No. 36/2012 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi is hereby set aside and I.A. No. I filed by defendant No. 3 under Section 21 read with Section 151 CPC is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the petitioners.