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 On account of default in payment of rent, an earlier eviction suit (SCC Suit No. 41 of 1986) was withdrawn with liberty due to a technical defect in the notice.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. 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 after dismissal of the Respondent’s revision on 22.03.2008. Once the said order became final, the revisional court in 2011 could not have reopened the same issue indirectly. 12. It is argued by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the revisional court ignored binding findings and proceeded as if exercising appellate jurisdiction, which is impermissible in a small cause revision. The impugned judgment does not disclose any finding of perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the trial court’s decree dated 23.11.2010. 13. Learned counsel further submits that the revisional court committed a manifest error by relying predominantly on oral assertions of the Respondent, while completely disregarding long-standing documentary evidence, contrary to settled principles that oral denial cannot displace consistent public records maintained over decades. 14. On these premises, it is contended that the impugned revisional judgment is illegal, perverse, and without jurisdiction, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable, as the Petitioners are seeking, in substance, a re-appreciation of evidence, which is beyond the permissible scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. 16. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable, as the Petitioners are seeking, in substance, a re-appreciation of evidence, which is beyond the permissible scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. 16. It is contended that the Respondent is not a tenant under the Petitioners, and that the Petitioners have failed to establish their title conclusively. According to the Respondent, the true owner of the property was Late Smt. Kaushalya Devi, who allegedly executed a Will dated 14.06.1984 in favour of the Respondent in consideration of services rendered, thereby conferring ownership rights upon him. 17. Learned counsel submits that municipal entries or tax receipts do not confer title, and such entries are at best fiscal in nature. The revisional court, therefore, rightly examined the underlying ownership and was justified in not blindly accepting the Petitioners’ claim of landlordship. 18. It is argued that the trial court failed to properly examine the question of title, which goes to the root of the matter, and the revisional court correctly exercised its jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice. 19. Learned counsel further submits that the earlier orders relied upon by the Petitioners cannot operate as res judicata against the Respondent, particularly when the issue of ownership was not finally adjudicated by a competent civil court. 20. It is contended that the decree of eviction was passed without a lawful foundation of landlord-tenant relationship, and therefore the revisional court rightly set aside the same to prevent enforcement of an illegal decree. 21. It is lastly urged that no case of patent lack of jurisdiction or grave injustice is made out so as to warrant interference under Article 227, and the writ petition deserves dismissal. 22. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present writ petition does not invite this Court to sit in appeal over findings of fact, but calls for examination of whether the revisional court has acted within the bounds of its statutory jurisdiction while exercising powers under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 23. The trial court, while decreeing SCC Suit No. 57 of 1996 vide judgment dated 23.11.2010, returned categorical findings on the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. 23. The trial court, while decreeing SCC Suit No. 57 of 1996 vide judgment dated 23.11.2010, returned categorical findings on the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. These findings were based on documentary evidence, including the registered sale deed dated 05.02.1985, municipal records, assessment lists, and the consistent conduct of the parties over a long period of time. 24. The record further reveals that an attempt made by the Respondent to raise a dispute relating to ownership was specifically considered and rejected by the trial court by a reasoned order dated 21.07.1998. The said order was carried in revision and stood affirmed on 22.03.2008, thereby attaining finality. Once such finality had attached, the issue could not have been reopened indirectly in subsequent proceedings. 25. In this backdrop, the revisional court, while deciding SCCR No. 49 of 2010, was required to confine itself to examining whether the decree passed by the trial court suffered from any jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity. The revisional jurisdiction was not an avenue for re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of factual conclusions. 26. A careful reading of the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2011 shows that the revisional court undertook a fresh evaluation of evidence, reassessed the credibility of documents relied upon by the trial court, and ventured into questions touching upon title and ownership. Such an exercise is clearly alien to the scope of a small cause revision. 27. The revisional court appears to have been unduly influenced by oral assertions and disputed claims of ownership raised by the Respondent, while overlooking the consistent documentary material and long-standing public records. It is settled that oral denial of tenancy cannot dislodge presumptions arising from registered documents and continuous municipal entries, particularly when such entries have remained unchallenged for decades. 28. This Court also finds substance in the grievance of the Petitioners that the revisional court failed to deal with the core reasoning of the trial court and did not demonstrate how the findings recorded therein were either perverse or legally unsustainable. The impugned judgment does not disclose cogent reasons justifying the reversal of a well-reasoned decree. 29. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is undoubtedly narrow, but it is equally well-settled that this Court would be justified in intervening where a subordinate court assumes jurisdiction not vested in it by law or exercises such jurisdiction in a manner resulting in manifest injustice. 29. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is undoubtedly narrow, but it is equally well-settled that this Court would be justified in intervening where a subordinate court assumes jurisdiction not vested in it by law or exercises such jurisdiction in a manner resulting in manifest injustice. The present case squarely falls within that category. 30. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction, misdirected itself in law, and interfered with findings that had already attained finality. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. 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) is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rishikesh, District Dehradun in SCC Suit No. 57 of 1996 (Yograj and another v. Ram Kumar) are restored.