Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. This revision filed by the tenant under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 has questioned the correctness of impugned judgment rendered in S.C.C. Suit No. 68 of 2011 on 20.4.2016 decreeing suit for eviction against the revisionist and in favour of the respondent coupled with an order for payment of a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards arrears of rent within a period of one month. As a consequence of default, damages have further been ordered.

3. Default in the payment of rent gave rise to a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which was sent to the revisionist on 15.6.2011 and has allegedly been served on 21.6.2011 and non-compliance whereof resulted in filing of suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages before the Court of Judge Small Causes which ultimately was decreed in favour of respondent by the Court below. The revisionist filed a written statement before the Court below wherein except denial of the plaint nothing more was stated. Each paragraph of written statement offers an evasive denial but the additional pleas set up a case of denial of tenancy altogether.

4. The defence raised under the additional pleas is three fold; firstly, the revisionist has denied landlord and tenant relationship. Secondly, the revisionist also denied payment of rent in absence of any landlord-tenant relationship being ever extant and; thirdly, the revisionist has denied ownership of the respondent landlord.

In the light of pleadings of the parties three issues were framed by the Judge Small Causes Court for determination of the lis between the parties. The first issue was framed as to whether the revisionist was a tenant of the respondent at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month. The second issue framed by the Court below was as regards ownership of the respondent in respect of property in question and the third issue was as to what relief the respondent was entitled to.

5. Insofar as issue No. 1 is concerned, documentary as well as oral evidence was led by the respondent/landlord before the Court below. The revisionist/tenant also led oral evidence of his own and of one Sri Mata Prasad to prove his case. In order to prove landlord tenant relationship, the oral testimony of revisionist in an injunction suit i.e. regular suit No. 415 of 2001 which suit was filed by the respondent against Nagar Mahapalika for permanent injunction wherein the revisionist had made a statement as a witness on behalf of respondent was filed and relied upon. The statement essentially disclosed the possession of the landlord over the property in dispute since last fifty years of which a portion had come to be let out to the revisionist in the year 1999. The testimony was believed by the Civil Court as credible for grant of ex parte decree in favour of the landlord which has remained unchallenged. Moreover, the own affidavit filed by the revisionist before the electricity authorities for obtaining electric connection was exhibited as evidence wherein the revisionist has accepted his status as tenant of the respondent-landlord. These evidences were not denied by the revisionist before the trial Court.

6. The Court below while adjudicating upon the issue of landlord-tenant relationship has heavily relied upon these two evidences to record a finding against the revisionist which does not suffer from any error of law in absence of anything being proved to the contrary on the basis of evidence led by the revisionist. Thus looking to the evidence on record led before the Court below, the findings recorded in the impugned judgment cannot be said to be baseless and suffering from any perversity.

7. Tenancy in the present case was created orally, therefore, payment of rent as an ingredient of landlord-tenant relationship was to be proved by the landlord once the relationship was denied. This Court having care