THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4764 of 2001 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though served, none appeared for the respondent. The petitioner, who is the defendant in Small Cause No.46 of 1994 (for short ‘the suit’) on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur, filed this revision under Section 24 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 seeking to assail the correctness of the judgment, dated 06.04.2001, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent for a sum of Rs.3,828.36ps. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent, who is claiming to be the owner and landlord of the schedule property, sought to recover the aforesaid amount from the petitioner towards maktha for the years 1992-93 and 1993-94 and in spite of issuance of legal notice on 05.07.1993, the petitioner had not come forward to pay the amount. Hence, the suit. The petitioner contested the same by denying certain receipts, which are said to be relied upon by the respondent. He contended that the respondent is not the owner and the actual owner is Smt. Srikanta Venkatasubbamma, who was examined as D.W.3. Subsequently, during trial, on behalf of the respondent, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.X1 to X22 were marked through D.W.3. The Court below after consideration of material available on record, did not find any justification to the plea raised by the petitioner and while holding that there is a proof of payment of rent by the petitioner himself, vide Ex.A3 a rent receipt, decreed the suit. Hence, this revision. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioner in this revision is as regards denial of ownership of the respondent over the schedule property and without deciding such question, in the suit, which is of a very concise nature, he cannot be mulcted with the liability. In the course of arguments, it is also pointed out that there are separate proceedings pending between the parties and the petitioner has also raised such plea therein and necessarily, the said question cannot be gone into independently in these proceedings. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and also on a perusal of the material on record, it is needless to reiterate that the suit being a small case, any serious question as regards title cannot be gone into and it is necessarily to be gone into in the comprehensive suit including eviction proceedings filed by the respondent herein. Hence, I do not find any merit in this revision, which is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the authority before whom the proceedings are pending, to decide such question independently uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J Dated: 22.07.2010 kdl