Revisional court under Provincial Small Cause Courts Act cannot re-appreciate evidence or reopen settled landlord-tenant issues proved by documents; exceeds jurisdiction, allowing supervisory interference under Article 227.

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioners, who claim to be the landlords of the premises in dispute, assailing the judgment dated 15.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in SCCR No. 49 of 2010 ( Ram Kumar v. Yograj and another ).

2. By the impugned revisional judgment, the learned Revisional Court allowed the revision preferred by the Respondent tenant and set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rishikesh in SCC Suit No. 57 of 1996 ( Yograj and another v. Ram Kumar ), whereby the suit for eviction filed by the Petitioners was decreed.

3. The Petitioners claim ownership and landlordship over the property bearing House No. 43 (also described as 42/47), Advaitanand Marg, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 05.02.1985, executed in their favour by Shri Gulshan Khosla, nephew and legatee of the original owner Late Smt. Kaushalya Devi, who had earlier executed a registered Will dated 29.11.1978.

4. It is the specific case of the Petitioners that the Respondent was a tenant under the original owner and, by virtue of the transfer of ownership, became a tenant under the Petitioners. Municipal records and house-tax assessments continuously recorded the Petitioners as owners, and the Respondent never sought correction of those entries.

5. On account of default in payment of rent, an earlier eviction suit (SCC Suit No. 41 of 1986) was withdrawn with liberty due to a technical defect in the notice. Thereafter, a fresh notice dated 25.07.1996 was served upon the Respondent demanding arrears of rent and vacation of the premises.

6. Upon failure of the Respondent to comply, SCC Suit No. 57 of 1996 was instituted. During the pendency of the suit, the Respondent sought to raise disputes regarding ownership, which were repelled by the trial court vide order dated 21.07.1998, and the said order was upheld in revision on 22.03.2008, thereby settling the issue.

7. Ultimately, the suit was decreed on 23.11.2010 by the trial court. However, the revisional court, by the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2011, reversed the decree, primarily on re-assessment of facts and by entering into questions of title, giving rise to the present writ petition.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in SCCR No. 49 of 2010 suffers from jurisdictional perversity, inasmuch as the revisional court has transgressed the limited scope of revision under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by re-appreciating evidence and reopening settled issues of fact.

10. It is contended that the relationship of landlord and tenant stood conclusively established on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 05.02.1985, continuous municipal and house-tax records reflecting the Petitioners’ ownership, and the express recital in the sale deed acknowledging the Respondent as a tenant. These facts were accepted by the trial court and never displaced by cogent evidence.

11. Learned counsel submits that the Respondent’s attempt to raise a title dispute was specifically rejected by the trial court vide order dated 21.07.1998, which attained finality af