UKHC010082082023

2026:UHC:5087

Judgment Reserved on: 29 .05.2026

Judgment Delivered on :19.06.2026

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY

CIVIL REVISION NO.74 OF 2023

Hirdesh Sharma and Another ...Revisionists

Versus

Nazakat Ali Khan …Respondent.

Counsel for the revisionists : Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel

Counsel for the respondent : Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior

Counsel assisted by Mr. Sunil

Chandra, learned counsel.

JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J. )

The present civil revision under Section 25 of the

Provincial Small Causes Court Act has been filed against the

judgment and decree dated 10.05.2023 passed by the learned

Judge, Small Causes Court/ II Additional District Judge,

Haldwani, District Nainital in S .C.C. Suit No.20 of 2021,

“Nazakat Ali Khan Vs. Hirdesh Sharma and Another”. By the

said order, learned Judge, Small Causes Courts Act decreed

the suit of the respondent /plaintiff for arrears of rent,

damages and eviction.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that a

suit for arrears of rent, damages and eviction was filed by the

plaintiff/respondent against the revisionists stating therein

that the plaintiff is the owner and landlord of House No.4-297

(at present House No.4 -54) at Tanakpur Road, Haldwani

wherein the revisionists are occupying three rooms, kitchen

and washroom as tenant @ ₹600/- per month and the rent

1

UKHC010082082023

2026:UHC:5087

from 15.09.2015 to September, 2021 was due.

3. The boundaries of the suit property as described in

the plaint were garden of the plaintiff in the east, road in the

west, house of the plaintiff in the north and in the south a

lane and, thereafter, the house of the plaintiff.

4. As per the plaint, the father of the revisionists

Amarjeet Sharma S/o Buadutt Sharma was the original tenant

and after the death of Amarjeet Sharma the tenancy devolved

upon revisionist no.1 and the revisionist no.2, the son of

Amarjeet Sharma. The revisionist no.1 filed written statement

in the month of March 2022 wherein the relationship of

landlord-tenant was denied and it was contended that the

revisionists were never the tenant of the plaintiff.

5. It was further averred that earlier a suit was filed by

the plaintiff against revisionist no.1 for eviction and arrears of

rent which was dismissed and the finding recorded in the

earlier suit that there was no relationship of landlord and

tenant between the plaintiff and revisionist no.1 has attained

finality in the Suit No.12 of 2004 deciced on 12.09.2015. It

was further stated in the written statement that the suit

property is on a nazool land which was given to Shri Achhan

Khan on lease and after his death his wife Ch hunni Begum

used to collect rent from the predecessor of the revisionist s.

After the death of Smt. Chhunni Begum the tenanted property

is under the Municipal Board, Haldwani. In the written

2

UKHC010082082023

2026:UHC:5087

statement, it was further stated that there is a dispute

between legal heirs of Acchan Khan and the plaintiff.

6. In the evidence affidavit filed by the revisionist no.1

it was stated that the revisionists had vacated the suit

property and are residing in a different property purchased by

them from one Shri Ranjeet Singh. It was stated in the

evidence affidavit that earlier the electricity bill and water bill

were raised in the name of Ranjeet Singh and now the same

are being raised in the name of revisionist, as such, the

revisionists who had voluntarily vacated the suit property and

are now residing in a different property are no longer the

tenant in the suit property.

7. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence

adduced before it, however, decreed the suit in favour of the

plaintiff/ respondent against which the present revision has

been preferred.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionists assailing the

said order and in support of the revision filed before this Court

has summarized his submissions as hereunder:

1) The revisionists had vacated the suit property

and are residing in a different property purchased

by them from Shri Ranjeet Singh.

2) The revisionist’s predecessors were the tenant

in the suit property and revisionists were never the

tenant of plaintiff.

3

UKHC010082082023

2026:UHC:5087

3) Suit No.12 of 2004 was filed earlier by the

plaintiff against the revisionist no.1 which was

dismissed on the ground that there was no

relationship of tenant and landlord between the

plaintiff and revisionist no.1, as such, the

subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by

principle of res judicata.

4) Though in the written statement , the

revisionists had not stated that they had vacated

the suit property and are residing in a separate

property purchased from Ranjeet Singh, however, in

the evidence affidavit filed before the Court a

specific stand was taken to the effect that the

property was purchased by the revisionist no.1 from

Ranjeet Singh and the revisionists were residing in

the aforesaid property and not in the suit property.

5) The documents filed before the Trial Court viz.

documents of purchase of property, photographs

and electricity bills were sufficient to prove that the

revisionist no.1 and his brother revisionist no.2 were

residing in a separate accommodation.

6) The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court

that the revisionists were the tenant of the plaintiff

and were not residing in the property purchased

from Ranjeet Singh is totally perverse and is liable

4

UKHC010082082023

2026:UHC:5087

to be set aside.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

/plaintiff submitted that:

1) The revisionists have changed their stand at

different stages of the case. In the written

statement, there was no recital that the revisionist

no.1 had purchased the su it property and the

revisionists had only denied the relationship of

tenant and landlord.

2) Though the stand taken in the evidence

affidavit (filed by revisionist no.1 on his behalf as

well as on behalf of revisionist no.2), in absence of

any pleading in the written statement, was

inadmissible, however, the learned Trial Court

considered the evidence led by the revisionist no.1

and discarded the plea of the revisionists that they

had vacated the suit property and were residing in a

separate property purchased by Ranjeet Singh.

3) The finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court,

on the basis of the evidence adduced , led to the

conclusion that the revisionists were the tenant in

the suit property and the tenancy was inherited by

them through their predecessors.

4) In the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff against

the revisionist no.1 stating that the revisionist no.1

5

UKHC010082082023

2026:UHC:5087

was a tenant in one room set, the revisionist no.1

had taken a stand that he is residing in the three

room set ( suit property) with his father who is the

tenant and, as such, the Trial Court had recorded a

finding and decided the suit by observing that

respondent no.1 was not a tenant and was residing

with his father in the three room set, however, after

the death of Shri Amarjeet Sharma, the revisionists

resided in the suit property and inherited the

tenancy. Thus, the subsequent suit is not barred by

principle of res judicata and the said issue was dealt

with by the learned Trial Court.

5) In case the revisionists were disputing the title

of the plaintiff in the suit property then an

appropriate application under Section 23 of the

Small Cause Court Act could have been filed by

them, however, the revisionists have made only bald

allegations in the written statement disputing the

title of the plaintiff in the suit property.

6) The question of title of the plaintiff with respect

to the suit property could be examined incidentally

and the contention of the revisionists in the written

statement that the property was a nazool property

and there was dispute between the legal heirs of

Acchan Khan was dealt with by the learned Trial

6

UKHC010082082023

2026:UHC:5087

Court, on the basis of the judgment passed by this

High Court in misc. writ petition WPMS No.3375 of

2019 and it was held that the plaintiff is the

owner/landlord of the suit property, on the basis of

the Will executed by Smt. Chhuni Begum w/o Late

Shri Acchan Khan.

10. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the

plaintiff /respondent and perused the record.

11. Learned Trial Court for adjuciation of the suit had

framed the following issues:

“1- D;k çLrqr okn ds jsl&tqfMdkVk ds fl)kUr ls ckf/kr gS\

2- D;k oknh o çfroknhx.k ds e/; Hkou Lokeh o fdjk;snkj ds lEcU/k LFkkfir pys vk jgs gS]

tSlk fd oknh }kjk dgk x;k gS\ ;fn gk¡a rks çHkko\

3- D;k çfroknhx.k ç'uxr lEifÙk ij 600@& :i;k çfrekg dh nj ls fdjk;snkj vkckn pys

vkrs gSa\

4- D;k çfroknh }kjk oknh ds yS.My‚MZ ds LoRo gksus ls bUdkj fd;k x;k gS] ftlls Hkh og

ç'uxr lEifÙk ls csn[ky gksus ;ksX; gS\

5- D;k çfroknh }kjk oknh dks fnukad 15-09-2015 ls flrEcj 2021 rd dk fdjk;k vnk ugha

fd;k x;k] ftl dkj.k og ç'uxr lEifÙk ls csn[ky gksus ;ksX; gSA

6- D;k uksfVl fnukafdr 02-09-2021 dh çkfIr ds ,d ekg ds mijkUr çfroknh ç'uxr lEifÙk

ls csn[ky gksus ;ksX; gSA

7- vuqrks"k\

”

12. The facts which are not in dispute in the present

case are that:

1) The revisionists in the written statement had

not taken a plea that the tenanted premises was

vacated and they were residing in a separate house

purchased from Ranjeet Singh. The said stand was

taken for the first time in the evidence affidavit.

2) The revisionist no.1 in the earlier Suit No.12 of

2004 filed by the plaintiff had taken a stand that he

is residing with his father who is a tenant of the

7

UKHC010082082023

2026:UHC:5087

plaintiff.

3) The revisionists in the written statement had

claimed that the suit property is on nazool land and

was given on lease to Achhan Khan and after his

death his wife Smt. Chhunni Begum used to collect

rent from the predecessors of the revisionist.

4) In the evidence affidavit filed by the revisionist

no.1 on his behalf and on behalf of revisionist no.2 a

stand was taken that revisionists are residing in a

separate house purchased from Ranjeet Singh and

the tenanted portion was in possession of the

revisionists till 2016 and the same was vacated

thereafter in the year 2016 itself. It was also

admitted that the predecessors of the revisionists

were residing in the tenanted portion since 1947.

13. Learned Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence

adduced before it, decided Issue No.1 to 4 and held that the

suit was not barred by the principle of res judicata and the

relationship of landlord and tenant was established between

the plaintiff and the revisionists.

14. With regard to the finding that there exists a

relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties, the

learned Trial Court reached to the said conclusion on the basis

of the fact that in the earlier Suit No.12 of 2004 the revisionist

no.1 was said to be a tenant of one room and therein the

8

UKHC010082082023

2026:UHC:5087

revisionist no.1 had taken a stand that he is residing with his

father in three room set as his son and not as a separate

tenant.

15. The learned Trial Court in Suit No.12 of 2004, as

such, concluded that the relationship of tenant and landlord

between the revisionist no.1 and plaintiff on the one room set

alleged to be in the tenanted occupation of revisionist no.1

was not established. After the death of the father of revisionist

no.1, the tenancy was inherited by him from his father

Amrjeet Sharma, who was also impleaded , as party/

respondent no.2 in the earlier Suit No.12 of 2004.

16. Learned Trial Court also took note of the fact that in

the written statement filed in Suit No.12 of 2004 the father of

the revisionists Shri Amarjeet Sharma and the revisionist no.1

had admitted that there exists a relationship of tenant and

landlord between Shri Amarjeet Sharma and the plaintiff.

17. Further the revisionists in the evidence affidavit had

submitted that they were residing in the suit property since

1947 though a stand was taken that the revisionists had

vacated the property in 2016. The learned Trial Court took

into consideration the fact that the revisionists had changed

its stand at every stage as in the written statement it was

stated that the suit property is on the nazool land; in the

evidence affidavit it was stated that the property was

purchased by revisionists from Ranjeet Singh; and again a

9

UKHC010082082023

2026:UHC:5087

stand was taken that the suit property was vacated in 2016.

The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in paragraph

nos.30 to 37 of the judgment reads as under:

“

30- vc pwafd ;g fufoZokn rF; gS fd oknh }kjk iz'uxr lEifRr ds ,d dejs

ds ckcr iwoZ esa ,d [kQhQk okn la[;k 12@2004 ;ksftr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlesa

izfroknh la0 1 ân;s'k 'kekZ vkSj mlds firk Lo0 vejthr 'kekZ }kjk viuk

tokcnkok nkf[ky dj bl ckr dks Lohdkjk Fkk fd iz'uxr lEifRr ij vejthr

'kekZ 600@& :i;k izfrekg dh nj ls fdjk;snkj vkckn pys vkrs gS tks fd

fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ekuk x;k vkSj r; ik;k x;k fd fuxjkuh esa Hkh ;g fu.kZ;

;Fkkor jgk] ftlls vc izfroknhx.k ij ,LVksIiy dk fl)kUr ykxw gksrk gSA ,sls

esa vc bl okn esa izfroknhx.k }kjk mijksDr rF; ls bUdkj djus dk vFkZ ;gh gS

fd og fdjk;snkjh dh lEifRr ij ;su&dsu&izdkjs.k dCtk cuk;s j[kuk pkgrs gSa]

ftldh iqf"V muds }kjk bl okn esa nkf[ky tokcnkos ,oa lk{; 'kiFk i= ls Hkh

gksrh gSA

31- mijksDr okn esa izfroknhx.k igys vius tokcnkos esaa ;g dFku ysdj

mifLFkr gq, fd iz'uxr lEifRr vPNu [kku dh Fkh vkSj mudh e`R;q ds mijkUr

;g lEifRr mudh iRuh NqUuh csxe dh gqbZ] ysfdu mudh e`R;q ds mijkUr]

D;ksafd ;g lEifRr utwy lEifRr Fkh] blfy;s mRrjk[k.M ljdkj dh gqbZA blds

mijkUr izfroknhx.k vius lk{; 'kiFk i= esa iqu% u;s dFkuksa ds lkFk mifLFkr

gq,] gkykafd i{kdkj vius nkos o tokcnkos ds dFkuksa ls ckgj tkdj lk{; ugha

ns ldrs gSaA blfy;s oSls rks izfroknhx.k ds dFku iBuh; ugh gSa] ijUrq U;k; dh

n`f"V U;k;ky; izfroknhx.k ds mu dFkuksa dk Hkh mYys[k ;gkW djuk U;k;ksfpr

ikrh gSA

32- izfroknhx.k ds lk{; 'kiFk i= esa dgs x;s dFkuksa ds vuqlkj ;g lEifRr

jathr flag dh Fkh vkSj ogh bldk igys fctyh ikuh dk fcy tek djrs Fks vkSj

tc mUgksus jathr flag ls bdjkjukes ds rgr eycs lfgr ;g lEifRr [kjhn yh

rks og bl lEifRr ds ekfyd gq,A vkxs pydj muds }kjk dqN QksVksxzkQ dkxt

la[;k 33x@3 yxk;r 5 nkf[ky fd;s gSa] tks fd izfroknhx.k ds vuqlkj oknh dh

iz'uxr lEifRr o mudh dCts okyh lEifRr] tks fd vyx&vyx gS] ds gSaA

izfroknhx.k ds }kjk bu QksVksxzkQl ds ek/;e ls ;g dgus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k

fd jathr flag dh lEifRr vkSj vPNu [kku dh lEifRr nksuksa vyx&vyx gSa vkSj

og yksx jathr flag ds lEifRr ij jg jgs gsSa rFkk muds }kjk vPNu [kku dh

lEifRr dk dCtk igys gh oknh dks lkSi fn;k FkkA

33- loZizFke ;fn izfroknhx.k }kjk iz'uxr lEifRr dk dCtk oknh dks ns

fn;k Fkk rks muds }kjk vius tokcnkos esa ;gh dFku ysdj vkus pkfg, Fks] ysfdu

izfroknhx.k us vius tokcnkos esa rks ,sls dksbZ dFku gh ugha fd;s rFkk vius

lk{; 'kiFk i= esa bl ckr dk dgha [kqyklk fd;k fd mUgksus oknh dks mldh

lEifRr dk dCtk dc ns fn;k FkkA blds vfrfjDr nkf[ky QksVksxzkQ dks lkfcr

ugha djk;k x;k fd ;g fookfnr Hkou ds gks] cfYd cgl ds nkSjku Hkh fookfnr

Hkou vkSj vius Hkou dh iqrkbZ ds jax dks ysdj cgl dh x;h vkSj U;k;ky; dks

nksuksa lEifRr vyx&vyx gksuk crk;k x;k] tcfd bl ekeys esa nks vyx&vyx

fcfYMx gksus dk dksbZ fookn izfroknhx.k }kjk iwoZ esa mBk;k gh ugh x;k vkSj vc

Hkh bl rjg ds lk{; ls vius dFkuksa dks lkfcr djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k] tks

fd drbZ Hkh lk{; esa iBuh; nLrkost ugha gSA

34- blds vfrfjDr izfroknhx.k }kjk mijksDr okn esa lwph lcwr 33x ls

33x@2 lEcfU/kr cgh uEcj ,oa fctyh] ikuh ds fcy o la;kstu vkfn ds izi=

dkxt la[;k 33x@6 yxk;r 25 nkf[ky fd;s x;s gSaa tks fd izfroknh la0&1

ân;s'k 'kekZ vkSj jathr flag ds uke gSA bu lc ds ckcr~ U;k;ky; dk er gS fd

cgh uEcj vPNu [kku ls lEcfU/kr izi= gS] ftl ij izfroknhx.k ds vuqlkj

iz'uxr lEifRr dk fooj.k bl lEifRr ls esy ugha [kkrk gSA bl ij oknh }kjk

10

UKHC010082082023

2026:UHC:5087

Li"V fd;k x;k fd vPNu [kku ds ikl ml txg vkSj Hkh lEifRr ekStwn gS rFkk

bl lEifRr esa ckn esa fuekZ.k bR;kfn Hkh gqvk gSA ,sls esa izfroknhx.k ds rdZ

vk/kkjghu gks tkrs gSaaA

35- tgkW rd fctyh ikuh bR;kfn ds fcy dk iz'u gS] bl ij U;k;ky; dk

er gS fd fctyh o ikuh ds la;kstu ds vk/kkj ij fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks lEifRr

dk ekfyd ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA blfy;s nkf[ky fctyh o ikuh ds fcy dh

QksVksizfr;kas dk dksbZ ykHk izfroknhx.k dks ugha fn;k tk ldrk gSA gkykafd Lo;a

izfroknhx.k vkxs ;g dgdj pys vk jgs gSa fd iz'uxr lEifRr o ftl lEifRr

esa og jg jgs gSa] og i`Fkd&i`Fkd gSaA ,sls easa izfroknhx.k }kjk vius gh dFkuksa ds

foijhr tkdj dFku fd;s tk jgs gSaA

36- izfroknhx.k ds vuqlkj muds }kjk ;g lEifRr jathr flag ls dz; dh x;h

gS] ftlds ckcr mlds }kjk lwph lcwr 51x ls ,d QksVks o viathd`r bdjkjukek

nkf[ky fd;k x;k g]S ftlds izfroknhx.k }kjk lkfcr Hkh ugh djk;k x;k gSA

blds vfrfjDr izfroknhx.k }kjk cgl esa bl rF; dks U;k;ky; }kjk iwNus ij

Hkh Li"V ugha fd;k x;k fd iz”uxr lEifRr ds ekfyd jathr flag dSls gq,A

nkf[ky bdjkjukek viathd`r vfHkys[k gS] ftls lkfcr djus rd dk iz;kl

izfroknhx.k }kjk ugha fd;k x;k gSA ,sls esa Li"V iznf'kZr gksrk gS fd izfroknhx.k

csgn pkykdh ls ckj&ckj vius dFkuksa dks cny jgs gSa vkSj feF;k lk{; ,df=r

dj i=koyh esa nkf[ky dj jgs gSaA

37- mijksDr okn esa ,d rjQ izfroknhx.k iwoZ [kQhQk okn la[;k 12@2004

esa oknh dks iz”uxr lEifRr dk ekfyd gksuk ,oa vius firk vejthr 'kekZ dks

bl lEifRr ij 600@&:i;k izfrekg dh nj ls fdjk;snkj gksuk Lohdkj dj pqds

gSa vkSj muds }kjk bl rF; dks Hkh Lohdkj fd;k x;k fd og yksx vius firk ds

lkFk mudk ifjokj gksus dh gSfl;r ij iz'uxr lEifRr ij fuokl dj jgs gSaa]

ftlls Li"V gS fd Lo0 vejthr 'kekZ dh e`R;q ds mijkUr izfroknhx.k dks crkSj

okfjlku bl lEifRr dh fdjk;snkjh izkIr gqbZ gSA

"

18. With regard to the fact that the property was a

nazool land the learned Trial Court took into consideration the

registered sale deed filed by the plaintiff of the year 1935 of

Late Achhan Khan and the order passed by the High Court of

Uttarakhand in WPMS No.3375 of 2019 which was paper

no.52-C/2. The learned Trial Court also took into consideration

the statement of Jayant Kumar, DW -2 an employee of the

Nagar Nigam and DW -3 Chandan Singh an employee of the

PWD Department.

19. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court in

paragraph nos.38 to 48 of the order reads as under:

“38- izfroknhx.k }kjk vius tokcnkos esa oknh ds ekfydkuk gd ls bUdkj dj

bl lEifRr dks ljdkj dh lEifRr gksuk crk;k gSA bl ij U;k;ky; ;g Li"V

11

UKHC010082082023

2026:UHC:5087

djuk vko';d ikrh gS fd oknh }kjk iz'uxr lEifRr [kqnkcD'k dh gksuk crk;k

x;k Fkk] ftlls vPNu [kku }kjk ;g lEifRr o"kZ 1935 esa dz; dh x;h Fkh vkSj

mudh e`R;q ds mijkUr ;g lEifRr mudh iRuh NqUuh nsoh dks izkIr gqbZA oknh

}kjk vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa 1935 dh jftLVªh dh lR; izfrfyfi dkxt la[;k

49x@2 yxk;r 6 i=koyh esa nkf[ky dh x;h gSaA ,sls ess oknh }kjk vius dFkuksa

dks fo'oluh; lk{; ls( tks fd ,d jftLVMZ nLrkost gS vkSj o"kZ 1935 dk gS(

ls fl) fd;k x;k gS] ftls i`Fkd ls lkfcr djus dh vko';drk ugha gSA

39- blds vfrfjDr ;gkW ij ;g Hkh egRoiw.kZ rF; gS fd vPNu [kku dh e`R;q

ds ckn mlds HkkbZ xqPNu [kku ds cPPkksa us NqUuh csxe ds fo:) vPNu [kku dh

lEifRr ds ckcr~ flfoy o jsoU;w ds dbZ eqdnes fd;sA NqUuh csxe bu lHkh

eqdneksa esaa vPNu [kku dh lEifRr dh ekfyd gksuk ik;h x;h] ftls ekuuh;

mRrjk[k.M mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh fjV fiVh'ku ¼,e@,l½ ua0 3375@2019 esa

ekuk x;k] ftldh izfr i=koyh esa lwph lcwr 52x@2 yxk;r 31 ekStwn gSaaA

40- blds mijkUr iz'uxr lEifRr ij NqUuh csxe dh olh;r ds vk/kkj ij

oknh dk uke ntZ gqvk] ftlds ckcr udy [krkSuh 52x@40 yxk;r 41] oknh

}kjk nkf[ky dh x;h gSA blds vfrfjDr i=koyh esa uxj ikfydk easa Hkh oknh

dk uke iz'uxr lEifRr esa crkSj ekfyd pyk vkrk gS] ftlds ckcr u dsoy

uxjikfydk ds x`g dj fu/kkZj.k dh izfr 9x o mldh jlhn 10x i=koyh ij

nkf[ky dh x;h gS] cfYd oknh }kjk Lo;a iwoZ esa [kQhQk okn la[;k 12@2004 ds

fu.kZ; dh izfr ,oa uxj ikfydk dh dj fu/kkZj.k dh izfr o"kZ 2006&11 dh lR;

izfrfyfi lwph lcwr 26x ls 26@2 yxk;r 8 nkf[ky dh gSaaA

41- oknh }kjk vius dFkuksa dks vius c;ku o lk{; ds ek/;e ls fl) fd;k

x;k gS tcfd izfroknhx.k }kjk gj txg vius c;kuksa o dFkuksa dks cnyk x;k

gSA izfroknhx.k }kjk ân;s'k 'kekZ dks Mh0MCY;w0&1 dss :i esa ijhf{kr djk;k

x;k] ftlesa mlds }kjk ;g dFku fd;k x;k fd&ftl Hkou esa og jg jgk gS

mlesa o"kZ 2016 ls iwoZ mldk uke ntZ ugha gS mls ml le; dh fLFkfr Kkr ugha

gS rFkk o"kZ 2016 ds mijkUr uxjikfydk esa jksd ds dkj.k mldk uke ntZ ugha

gqvkA oknh }kjk vuqfpr rjhds ls viuk uke uxjikfydk esa ntZ djk fy;k x;k

gSA mls iz'uxr lEifRr esa crkSj fdjk;snkj ntZ gksus dh igys dksbZ tkudkjh ugha

FkhA

42- bl izdkj bl xokg dks ;g iw.kZ tkudkjh pyh vkrh gS fd iz'uxr

lEifRr ij oknh dk uke crkSj ekfyd rFkk mlds o mlds firk dk uke crkSj

fdjk;snkj ntZ pyk vkrk gS] ysfdu ckotwn blds] mlds }kjk dksbZ dk;Zokgh u

fd;k tkuk rFkk iwoZ [kQhQk okn easa bl lEifRr ij vius firk dks 600@&

:i;k izfrekg dh nj ls fdjk;snkj Lohdkjuk] izfroknhx.k ds mijksDr okn ds

dFkuksa ds fo:) tkrk gS vkSj blls izfroknhx.k ds bl izdkj ds dFkuksa ls Li"V

iznf'kZr gksrk gS fd izfroknhx.k U;k;ky; esa LoPN gkFkksa ls mifLFkr ugha gq, gSaaA

43- izfroknhx.k }kjk t;ar dqekj xokg tks fd uxj fuxe esa dk;Zjr gS] dks

crkSj Mh0MCY;w0&2 izLrqr fd;k x;k ftlesa xokg }kjk eq[; ijh{kk esa gh ;g

dFku fd;k x;k fd&oknh dk uke iz'uxr lEifRr ds ckcr 17 dejs ntZ

vfHkys[k gksus dh ckr dgrs gq, oknh dk uke ntZ gksus dh ckr dghA

44- blds vfrfjDr ftjg esa bl xokg us Li"V dFku fd;k fd& mls o"kZ

2006 ls o"kZ 2011 rFkk o"kZ 2016 ls o"kZ 2021 ds eVdh jftLVj dh tkudkjh

ugha gS mlus ekSds ij Hkou ugha ns[kkA og o"kZ 2006 ls o"kZ 2011 ls lEcfU/kr

eVdh jftLVj U;k;ky; eas ysdj ugh vk;k gSA mls bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS

fd vejthr 'kekZ vFkok muds iq= ân;s'k 'kekZ o dey 'kekZ ds uke eksgYyk

Vudiqj jksM ds fdlh edku ds uke dj fu/kkZj.k uxj fuxe }kjk fd;k x;k gksA

45- bl izdkj bl xokg ds c;ku izfroknhx.k dks fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ ykHk

ugha igqaapkrs gSa] cfYd blds c;ku ls oknh ds gh dFkuksa dks cy feyrk gSA

46- blh izdkj izfroknhx.k }kjk Mh0MCY;w0&3 pUnu flag fltokyh dks

12

UKHC010082082023

2026:UHC:5087

ijhf{kr djk;k x;k tks fd ih0MCY;w0Mh0 foHkkx esaa dk;Zjr gSa] us viuh eq[;

ijh{kk esa ;g dFku fd;k fd&utwy jftLVj la[;k 9 tks og vius lkFk yk;k gS]

esa vPNu [kku] utkdr [kku o NqUuh csxe esa ls fdlh ds uke ij dksbZ Hkh

lEifRr vafdr ugha gSA

47- bl xokg ls tc ftjg dh x;h rks mlus Li"V c;ku fn;k fd&;g

jftLVj o"kZ 1934 ls igys dk gS blds ckn ls bl jftLVj esa vkt fnu rd

dksbZ u;s bUnzkt ntZ ugha fd;s x;s gSA utwy jftLVj esa ek= tehau dk fooj.k

gSA ml ij fufeZr Hkouksa dk dksbZ fooj.k ugha gSA mls ekywe gS fd utwy Hkwfe;ksa

dh Hkh jftLVªh cSukek jftLVªkj dk;kZy; esa gqvk djrh FkhA

48- ,sls esa ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd izfroknhx.k us csgn pkykdh ls o"kZ 1934

ls iwoZ ds jftLVj dks xokg ds ek/;e ls U;k;ky; esa lkfcr djk;k] tcfd

iz'uxr lEifRr o"kZ 1935 esa fodz; dh x;h Fkh vkSj mlds mijkUr gLrkUrfjr

gksdj varr% oknh ds uke ntZ gqbZ tks fd oknh }kjk iw.kZr% fl) fd;k x;k gSA

izfroknhx.k }kjk uxj fuxe gY}kuh ls lwpuk dk vf/kdkj ds rgr lwpuk pkgh

x;h Fkh] ysfdu nkf[ky lwpuk vLi"V gS] D;kasfd [kqnk cD'k }kjk rks ;g lEifRr

1935 esa gh fodz; dj nh x;h Fkh] blfy;s izfroknhx.k }kjk nkf[ky ;g lwpuk

dsoy U;k;ky; dk /;ku HkVdkus ds fy;s nkf[ky dh gS] tks fd Li"V iznf'kZr

gksrk gSA

”

20. The issue with regard to the locus and title of the

plaintiff with regard to the suit property could be considered

as merely incidental in issue and not directly and substantially.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Ranbir Singh Vs.

Asharfi Lal 1995 (6) SCC 580 held that the question of title

may be examined incidentally but cannot be decided

conclusively in an eviction suit and it was held in paragraph

no.9 of the said judgment as follows:

“9. It may be pointed out that it is well- settled law that the

question of title of the property is not germane for decision of

the eviction suit. In a case where a plaintiff institutes a suit for

eviction of his tenant based on the relationship of the landlord

and tenant, the scope of the suit is very much limited in which

a question of title cannot be gone into because the suit of the

plaintiff would be dismissed even if he succeeds in proving his

title but fails to establish the privity of contract of tenancy. In a

suit for eviction based on such relationship the Court has only

to decide whether the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff or

not, though the question of title if disputed, may incidentally be

gone into, in connection with the primary question for

determining the main question about the relationship between

the litigating parties. In LIC v. India Automobiles & Co. [(1990)

4 SCC 286] (SCC pp. 300- 02, para 21) this Court had an

occasion to deal with similar controversy. In the said decision

this Court observed that in a suit for eviction between the

13

UKHC010082082023

2026:UHC:5087

landlord and tenant, the Court will take only a prima facie

decision on the collateral issue as to whether the applicant was

landlord. If the Court finds existence of relationship of landlord

and tenant between the parties it will have to pass a decree in

accordance with law. It has been further observed that all that

the Court has to do is to satisfy itself that the person seeking

eviction is a landlord, who has prima facie right to receive the

rent of the property in question. In order to decide whether

denial of landlord's title by the tenant is bona fide the Court

may have to go into tenant's contention on the issue but the

Court is not to decide the question of title finally as the Court

has to see whether the tenant's denial of title of the landlord is

bona fide in the circumstances of the case.”

21. Thus, the finding of fact recorded by the learned

Trial Court on the question as to whether the plaintiff was the

owner /landlord of the property and the relationship of tenant

and landlord existed between the revisionists and the

respondent are based on proper appreciation of facts and

cannot be termed to be perverse.

22. The other finding recorded by the learned Trial Court

that the suit was not barred by principle of res judicata is also

based on proper appreciation of the evidence placed before it

and cannot be termed to be perverse.

23. Learned counsel for the revisionists had argued that

the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court that the

revisionists were residing in the suit property and were not

residing in a separate property purchased by them from Shri

Ranjeet Singh is perverse. He submitted that the agreement

to sell, other evidence and the photographs enclosed were

sufficient to demonstrate that the revisionist was residing in a

separate property other than the suit property.

24. This Court had considered the finding recorded by

14

UKHC010082082023

2026:UHC:5087

the learned Trial Court on the said aspect s which are as

follows:

“

32- izfroknhx.k ds lk{; 'kiFk i= esa dgs x;s dFkuksa ds vuqlkj ;g lEifRr

jathr flag dh Fkh vkSj ogh bldk igys fctyh ikuh dk fcy tek djrs Fks vkSj

tc mUgksus jathr flag ls bdjkjukes ds rgr eycs lfgr ;g lEifRr [kjhn yh

rks og bl lEifRr ds ekfyd gq,A vkxs pydj muds }kjk dqN QksVksxzkQ dkxt

la[;k 33x@3 yxk;r 5 nkf[ky fd;s gSa] tks fd izfroknhx.k ds vuqlkj oknh dh

iz'uxr lEifRr o mudh dCts okyh lEifRr] tks fd vyx&vyx gS] ds gSaA

izfroknhx.k ds }kjk bu QksVksxzkQl ds ek/;e ls ;g dgus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k

fd jathr flag dh lEifRr vkSj vPNu [kku dh lEifRr nksuksa vyx&vyx gSa vkSj

og yksx jathr flag ds lEifRr ij jg jgs gsSa rFkk muds }kjk vPNu [kku dh

lEifRr dk dCtk igys gh oknh dks lkSi fn;k FkkA

33- loZizFke ;fn izfroknhx.k }kjk iz'uxr lEifRr dk dCtk oknh dks ns

fn;k Fkk rks muds }kjk vius tokcnkos esa ;gh dFku ysdj vkus pkfg, Fks] ysfdu

izfroknhx.k us vius tokcnkos esa rks ,sls dksbZ dFku gh ugha fd;s rFkk vius

lk{; 'kiFk i= esa bl ckr dk dgha [kqyklk fd;k fd mUgksus oknh dks mldh

lEifRr dk dCtk dc ns fn;k FkkA blds vfrfjDr nkf[ky QksVksxzkQ dks lkfcr

ugha djk;k x;k fd ;g fookfnr Hkou ds gks] cfYd cgl ds nkSjku Hkh fookfnr

Hkou vkSj vius Hkou dh iqrkbZ ds jax dks ysdj cgl dh x;h vkSj U;k;ky; dks

nksuksa lEifRr vyx&vyx gksuk crk;k x;k] tcfd bl ekeys esa nks vyx&vyx

fcfYMx gksus dk dksbZ fookn izfroknhx.k }kjk iwoZ esa mBk;k gh ugh x;k vkSj vc

Hkh bl rjg ds lk{; ls vius dFkuksa dks lkfcr djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k] tks

fd drbZ Hkh lk{; esa iBuh; nLrkost ugha gSA

34- blds vfrfjDr izfroknhx.k }kjk mijksDr okn esa lwph lcwr 33x ls

33x@2 lEcfU/kr cgh uEcj ,oa fctyh] ikuh ds fcy o la;kstu vkfn ds izi=

dkxt la[;k 33x@6 yxk;r 25 nkf[ky fd;s x;s gSaa tks fd izfroknh la0&1

ân;s'k 'kekZ vkSj jathr flag ds uke gSA

bu lc ds ckcr~ U;k;ky; dk er gS fd

cgh uEcj vPNu [kku ls lEcfU/kr izi= gS] ftl ij izfroknhx.k ds vuqlkj

iz'uxr lEifRr dk fooj.k bl lEifRr ls esy ugha [kkrk gSA bl ij oknh }kjk

Li"V fd;k x;k fd vPNu [kku ds ikl ml txg vkSj Hkh lEifRr ekStwn gS rFkk

bl lEifRr esa ckn esa fuekZ.k bR;kfn Hkh gqvk gSA ,sls esa izfroknhx.k ds rdZ

vk/kkjghu gks tkrs gSaaA

35- tgkW rd fctyh ikuh bR;kfn ds fcy dk iz'u gS] bl ij U;k;ky; dk

er gS fd fctyh o ikuh ds la;kstu ds vk/kkj ij fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks lEifRr

dk ekfyd ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA blfy;s nkf[ky fctyh o ikuh ds fcy dh

QksVksizfr;kas dk dksbZ ykHk izfroknhx.k dks ugha fn;k tk ldrk gSA gkykafd Lo;a

izfroknhx.k vkxs ;g dgdj pys vk jgs gSa fd iz'uxr lEifRr o ftl lEifRr

esa og jg jgs gSa] og i`Fkd&i`Fkd gSaA ,sls easa izfroknhx.k }kjk vius gh dFkuksa ds

foijhr tkdj dFku fd;s tk jgs gSaA

36- izfroknhx.k ds vuqlkj muds }kjk ;g lEifRr jathr flag ls dz; dh x;h

gS] ftlds ckcr mlds }kjk lwph lcwr 51x ls ,d QksVks o viathd`r bdjkjukek

nkf[ky fd;k x;k g]S ftlds izfroknhx.k }kjk lkfcr Hkh ugh djk;k x;k gSA

blds vfrfjDr izfroknhx.k }kjk cgl esa bl rF; dks U;k;ky; }kjk iwNus ij

Hkh Li"V ugha fd;k x;k fd iz”uxr lEifRr ds ekfyd jathr flag dSls gq,A

nkf[ky bdjkjukek viathd`r vfHkys[k gS] ftls lkfcr djus rd dk iz;kl

izfroknhx.k }kjk ugha fd;k x;k gSA ,sls esa Li"V iznf'kZr gksrk gS fd izfroknhx.k

csgn pkykdh ls ckj&ckj vius dFkuksa dks cny jgs gSa vkSj feF;k lk{; ,df=r

dj i=koyh esa nkf[ky dj jgs gSaA

”

15

UKHC010082082023

2026:UHC:5087

25. This Court has also considered the copy of the

unregistered agreement filed by the revisionist no.1 before

the learned Trial Court which reveals that there was no

boundary mentioned in the said agreement. Copy of the said

agreement which was filed befo re the learned Trial Court

reads as under:

Þbdjkjukek @ lEifRr dz;ukek

eSa fd ân; s’k 'kekZ] iq= LoxhZ; Jh vejthr 'kekZ] fuoklh rudiqj jksM] okMZ u 0&4] gY}kuh] ftyk

uSuhrky dk gWaw vkSj bl bdjkjukes @ lEifRr dz;ukes dk çFke i{k gw¡ rFkk vki Jh jUthr flag]

iq= Lo0 bZ'oj flag] fuoklh eksa axk] iatkc ds gSa rFkk bl bdjkjukes @ lEifRr dz;ukes esa f}rh;

i{k gSaA

f}rh; i{k dk ,d cgqr iq'rSuh edku V udiqj jksM] okMZ u0&4] gY}kuh] tuin uSuhrky esa fLFkr

gSA ftl edku dks vki çFke i{k ân;s’k 'kekZ }kjk ekg vçSy] 2014 esa eqc0& 9]75]000@& :i;s

e; eky eyqck ds dz; dj fy;k x;k gSA mDr edku tks fd 35

x45 oxZ fQV ij cuk gqvk gS rFkk

cgqr iqjkuk fufeZr gS mDr bdjkjukes e/;s edku dh eqck0&5]00]000@& #i;s izFke i{k }kjk f}rh;

i{k edku Lokeh dks udn vnk dj nh x;h gS rFkk ’ks "k /kujkf’k eqck0&4]75]000@& #i;k fnukad

21-04-2016 dks udn vnk dj fn;k x;k gSA

vc mä edku ls lacfU?kr çFke i{k ls f}rh; i{k us dksbZ ysuk&nsuk 'ks"k ugha jg x;k gS rFkk

mDr edku dk dCtk çFke i{k dks ekSds ij ns fn;k x;k gSA blfy, ;g bdjkjukek@dz;ukek

vkt fnukad 21-04-2016 dks rgjhj :c: xokgku ds dj fn;k x;k gS rkfd lun jgs o oDr

t:jr dke vk ldsA

g0 izFke i{k dszrk g0 f}rh; i{k edku fodzsrk

xokgA 1

) ihrkEcj nRr fogkjh

2

) ';ke fcgkjh yky d’;e

R/o jktiqjk gky fuoklh uSuhrky”

26. The said agreement, admittedly, was an

unregistered agreement wherein there was no boundar ies of

the alleged house purchased by the revisionist no.1 from

Ranjeet Singh. The said unregistered agreement was not

admissible in evidence. The learned Trial Court thus rightly

concluded that the revisionists failed to prove that the

photographs enclosed by them were of different building and

in absence of any such stand taken in the written statement

the said evidence was not trustworthy. Here it would be

16

UKHC010082082023

2026:UHC:5087

apposite to take into consideration the view taken by the

Hon’ble Apex Court that any amount of proof offered without

pleadings is generally of no relevance. The Hon’ble Apex Court

in the case of Shivshankara Vs. H.P. Vedavyasa Char,

(2023) 13 SCC 1 in para 64 has held as hereunder:

64. In the decision in Duggi Veera Venkata Gopala

Satyanarayana v. Sakala Veera Raghavaiah [Duggi Veera

Venkata Gopala Satyanarayana v. Sakala Veera Raghavaiah ,

(1987) 1 SCC 254] this Court agreed with the observation

made in the earlier decision in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath

Prasad [Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, (1981) 3 SCC 103]

that any amount of proof offered without pleadings is generally

of no relevance. In Duggi Veera Venkata Gopala

Satyanarayana [Duggi Veera Venkata Gopala

Satyanarayana v. Sakala Veera Raghavaiah, (1987) 1 SCC 254]

with respect to the aforesaid observations in Hasmat

Rai [Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, (1981) 3 SCC 103] this

Court held, “we respectfully agree with the above statement of

law and reiterate the same”. Further, it is also relevant to refer

to para 85.6 of the decision in Union of India v. Ibrahim

Uddin [Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148 :

(2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 362] , which reads thus : ( Ibrahim Uddin

case [Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148 :

(2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 362] , SCC p. 182)

“85.6. The court cannot travel beyond the pleadings as no

party can lead the evidence on an issue/point not raised in

the pleadings and in case, such evidence has been adduced

or a finding of fact has been recorded by the court, it is just

to be ignored. Though it may be a different case where in

spite of specific pleadings, a particular issue is not framed

and the parties having full knowledge of the issue in

controversy lead the evidence and the cou rt records a

finding on it.”

27. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court

that the revisionists failed to prove that they were residing in

a separate property purchased by Ranjeet Singh cannot be

said to be perverse.

28. This Court has also considered the finding recorded

by the learned trial Court with respect to issue no.5 and 6

wherein the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence

17

UKHC010082082023

2026:UHC:5087

adduced has recorded a finding that the notice dated

02.09.2021 was received by the revisionst and he was in

default of payment of rent. The said finding recorded by the

learned Trial Court does not suffer from any material

irregularity and in absence of any cogent evidence by the

revisionists this Court is in agreement with the reasoning

given by the Trial Court on the said issue.

29. Thus, looking into the entire findings recorded by

the learned Trial Court, this Court is of the firm opinion that

there is no perversity in the order passed by the learned Trial

Court.

30. In view of the above, the revision fails and the same

is, accordingly, dismissed.

31. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications ,

if any pending, shall stand closed.

___________________

SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

Dt:19.06.2026

Sukhbant

18