Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:28027 Court No. - 4 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 11 of 2019 Revisionist :- Geeta Jha Opposite Party :- Sachin Agarwal And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari,Rajesh Kumar Singh,Vinay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rama Goel Bansal,Rishabh Agarwal,Tarun Agrawal Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Shivangi Nanda learned Advocate holding brief of Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent. By means of present revision petition, petitioner has questioned the judgment and decree passed by Judge Small Causes dated 20th November, 2018 decreeing the suit for eviction as well as for damages for the period petitioner does not vacate the premises in question. The petitioner submitted that there is a finding returned by the Judge Small Cause to the effect that vide issue no. 1 and 2, that petitioner was never inducted as a tenant in the premises in question, and therefore, he had a status of a trespasser. The Court after appreciating oral testimony of the plaintiff has also returned a finding to the effect that there was no rent ever paid at any point of time by the petitioner as such in the status of tenant, and therefore, his status was of a trespasser only. However, even after recording its finding qua issue nos. 1 and 2, the Court has decreed the suit for eviction and damages. It is submitted by Sri Dayal that once the finding has come to be returned that there stood no jural relationship of the tenant and the landlord between respondent and present petitioner, there was no question for decreeing a suit by a Judge Small Cause as Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 is applicable to the state of U.P. vide U.P. Civil Amendment Act, 1972 for eviction of tenant from the building premises, through a summary suit before the Judge small causes. Reference has to be made to Article 4 of Schedule II of the Provincial of Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. It is submitted by Sri Dayal that there is no counter revision filed by the landlord to question the findings returned on issue nos. 1 and 2, and therefore, land lord will be taking to organized least to the finding returned on issue no. 1 and 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent could not dispute the fact that there is no revision filed by respondent questioning the finding on issue nos. 1 and 2, nor there is any cross objection filed in the present revision. In the circumstances, therefore, I find merit in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner . Since petitioner has been treated as a trespasser qua the premises in question, it was always open for the landlord to have filed a regular civil suit for ejectment of a trespasser. He can do so even now. Subject to this above liberty, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Judge 20.11.2018 and 1.12.2018 passed by First Additional District Judge, Jhansi in Small Case No. 5 of 2017 are hereby set aside. There will be no order as to cost. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Sanjeev Digitally signed by :- SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad