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 Chhunni Begum used to collect rent from the predecessor of the revisionists. 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 suit 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 esa ;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 gSaA 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 gSa] 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 es 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 gSaA 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 gSaA 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, gSaA 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 igqapkrs 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 esa 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 aspects 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 gSa 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 gSaA 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 before 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 u0&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 eksaaxk] 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 Vudiqj 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 35x45 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 boundaries 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 court 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 SUKHBA NT SINGH Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764 ea7bc7dd129a8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1D D4FB4BEBD2B7D72C42261361AED33172F152 148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH Date: 2026.06.19 14:01:39 +05'30'