Others v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Regional Manager

1. Heard Mr. Jata Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Ayush Mishra, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-opposite party filed a SCC Suit No.17 of 2016 for arrears of rent and ejectment against the revisionists/ defendants/ tenants. In the aforementioned SCC suit, written statement was filed by the revisionists / defendants and parties have adduced evidence in support of their case. Judge Small Cause vide judgement and decree dated 12.8.2025/ 19.8.2025, ordered for eviction of the revisionists/ defendants from the disputed property within period of one month along with payment of due rent to the plaintiff. Hence this revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 for the following reliefs: "This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the SCC Revision, set aside the impugned judgement dated 12.8.2025 and its decree dated 19.8.2025 passed by JSCC / Additional District Judge, Court No.26, Agra in S.C.C. No.17 of 2016, U.P.S.R.T.C. Agra vs. Ram Hans (deceased) and others. And/ or may pass such other and further suitable order which may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that without affording 2 SCCR No. 125 of 2025 proper opportunity to defendant to adduce evidence, the impugned judgement and decree has been passed by the Judge Small Cause, as such, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that no rent deed has been executed between the landlord and tenant. He further submitted that the plaintiff/landlord has given open area of 5x10x10 feet on lease from 5.1.2003 to 4.1.2013, as such, SCC suit filed by revisionists/defendant was not maintainable. He further submitted that the revisionist / defendants had constructed the shop with angle and tin shed and doing the work of general store but the aforementioned aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the Judge Small Cause. He further submitted that notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was not valid notice, as such, the suit cannot be decreed on the basis of invalid notice. He further submitted that the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of the defendant/ tenant to dismiss the suit on the ground of maintainability has not been taken into proper consideration. He further submitted that the revisionists / defendants have raised objection and filed application under Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act but the same has not been decided in proper manner. He further submitted that the impugned judgement should be set aside and SCC suit filed by plaintiff-respondent should be dismissed as not maintainable.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that the SCC Revision No.124 of 2022, 125 of 2022 & 126 of 2022 filed by the different tenant of the plaintiff-respondent-landlord has been dismissed by this Court vide judgement dated 23.9.2022, as such, the instant revision should also been dismissed on the same ground. He further submitted that SCC suit was filed in the year 2016 and even after appearance in the suit, the revisionists / defendants / tenants has avoided the proceeding, as such, there was no option except to decide the proceeding on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. He further submitted that the Judge Small Cause has granted repeated opportunity to defendants but defendants have not adduced evidence, accordingly, the matter was decided by the Judge Small Cause in accordance with law for eviction of the tenants. He further submitted that the finding of fact has been recorded by the Judge Small Cause regarding maintainability of the 3 SCCR No. 125 of 2025 suit, service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, relationship of landlord and tenant, applicability of the Act No.13 of 1972 which requires no interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. He further submitted that the instant revision filed by revisionists / defendants/ tenants should be dismissed.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the facts that SCC suit filed in the year 2016 by the plaintiff/opposite party/ landlord has been dismissed by the Judge Small Cause vide judgement and decree dated 12.8.2025/ 19.8.2025.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of all the seven issues framed by the Judge Small Cause will be relevant, which are as under: "1. क्या वादी एवं प्रितवादी के मध्य िकरायेदार व मकान मािलक का सम्बन्ध है ?

2. क्या सम्पित्त पर अिधिनयम संख्या 13/1972 के प्रावधान लागू होते हैं ?

3. क्या प्रितवादी पर वादपत्र में विणत गणना के अनुसार िकराये की धनरािश बकाया है ?

4. क्या नोिटस िदनांिकत 28.12.2015 के माध्यम से िकरायेदारी समाप्त हो चुकी है ?

5. क्या इस लघुवाद न्यायालय को वाद सुनने का क्षेत्रािधकार नहीं है ?

6. क्या क्षेत्रीय प्रबन्धक को यह वाद दायर करने का अिधकार नहीं था ?

7. क्या वादी िकसी अनुतोष को प्राप्त करने का अिधकारी है ?"

8. Judge Small Cause while considering the seven issues framed in the SCC suit has recorded finding of fact that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the non-applicability of the Act No.13 of 1972 in the instant matter, default in payment of rent, service of valid notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act upon the tenant regarding termination of tenancy and categorical finding of fact has also been recorded to the effect that revisionists / defendants/ tenants were given shop in tenancy rather upon piece of land. 4 SCCR No. 125 of 2025

9. In view of the categorical finding of fact recorded on all the seven issues framed before the Judge Small Cause, there is no further scope for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

10. So far as the scope of Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is concerned, the judgement of Apex Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 698, Hari Shankar vs. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury will be relevant for perusal . Paragraph No.12 to 15 of the judgement are as under: "12. The section we are dealing with, is almost the same as s. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That section has been considered by the High Courts in numerous cases and diverse interpretations have been given. The powers that it is said to confer would make a broad spectrum commencing at one end, with a view that only substantial errors of law can be corrected under it, and ending, at the other with a power of interference a little better than what an appeal gives. It is unless to discuss those cases in some of which the observations were probably made under compulsion of certain unusual facts. It is sufficient to say that we consider that the most accurate exposition of the meaning of such sections is that of Beaumont, C.J. (as he then was) in Bell & Co.Ltd. v. Waman Hemraj MANU/MH/0120/1937: AIR1938Bom223 where the learned Chief Justice, dealing with s. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, observed : "The object of s. 25 is to enable the High Court to see that there has been no miscarriage of justice, that the decision was given according to law. The section does not enumerate the cases in which the Court may interfere in revision, as does s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and I certainly do not propose to attempt an exhaustive definition of the circumstances which may justify such interference; but instances which readily occur to the mind are cases in which the Court which made the order had no jurisdiction or in which the Court has based its decision on evidence which should not have been admitted, or cases where the unsuccessful party has not been given a proper opportunity of being heard, or the burden of proof has been placed on the wrong shoulders. Wherever the court comes to the conclusion that the unsuccessful party has not had a proper trial according to law, then the Court can interfere. But, in my opinion, the Court ought not to interfere merely because it thinks that possibly the Judge who heard the case may have arrived at a conclusion which the High Court would not have arrived at." 5 SCCR No. 125 of 2025

13. This observation has our full concurrence.

14. What the learned Chief Justice has said applies to s. 35 of the Act, with which we are concerned. Judged from this point of view, the learned single Judge was not justified in interfering with a plan finding of fact and more so, because he himself proceeded on a wrong assumption.

15. The appeal thus succeeds, and is allowed with costs. The order under appeal is set aside, and that of the Additional District Judge restored. As regards eviction, the respondent has given an undertaking that he would vacate the house on or before April 25, 1962, and this has been accepted by the appellants."

11. Considering the ratio of law laid down by Apex Court regarding the jurisdiction of Court under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as well as the categorical finding of fact recorded by the Judge Small Cause, there is no scope for interference against the impugned judgement passed by Judge Small Cause in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

12. The SCC revision is dismissed accordingly. September 22, 2025 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)

1. Heard Mr. Jata Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Ayush Mishra, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-opposite party filed a SCC Suit No.17 of 2016 for arrears of rent and ejectment against the revisionists/ defendants/ tenants. In the aforementioned SCC suit, written statement was filed by the revisionists / defendants and parties have adduced evidence in support of their case. Judge Small Cause vide judgement and decree dated 12.8.2025/ 19.8.2025, ordered for eviction of the revisionists/ defendants from the disputed property within period of one month along with payment of due rent to the plaintiff. Hence this revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 for the following reliefs: "This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the SCC Revision, set aside the impugned judgement dated 12.8.2025 and its decree dated 19.8.2025 passed by JSCC / Additional District Judge, Court No.26, Agra in S.C.C. No.17 of 2016, U.P.S.R.T.C. Agra vs. Ram Hans (deceased) and others. And/ or may pass such other and further suitable order which may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that without affording 2 SCCR No. 125 of 2025 proper opportunity to defendant to adduce evidence, the impugned judgement and decree has been passed by the Judge Small Cause, as such, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that no rent deed has been executed between the landlord and tenant. He further submitted that the plaintiff/landlord has given open area of 5x10x10 feet on lease from 5.1.2003 to 4.1.2013, as such, SCC suit filed by revisionists/defendant was not maintainable. He further submitted that the revisionist / defendants had constructed the shop with angle and tin shed and doing the work of general store but the aforementioned aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the Judge Small Cause. He further submitted that notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was not valid notice, as such, the suit cannot be decreed on the basis of invalid notice. He further submitted that the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of the defendant/ tenant to dismiss the suit on the ground of maintainability has not been taken into proper consideration. He further submitted that the revisionists / defendants have raised objection and filed application under Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act but the same has not been decided in proper manner. He further submitted that the impugned judgement should be set aside and SCC suit filed by plaintiff-respondent should be dismissed as not maintainable.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that the SCC Revision No.124 of 2022, 125 of 2022 & 126 of 2022 filed by the different tenant of the plaintiff-respondent-landlord has been dismissed by this Court vide judgement dated 23.9.2022, as such, the instant revision should also been dismissed on the same ground. He further submitted that SCC suit was filed in the year 2016 and even after appearance in the suit, the revisionists / defendants / tenants has avoided the proceeding, as such, there was no option except to decide the proceeding on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. He further submitted that the Judge Small Cause has granted repeated opportunity to defendants but defendants have not adduced evidence, accordingly, the matter was decided by the Judge Small Cause in accordance with law for eviction of the tenants. He further submitted that the finding of fact has been recorded by the Judge Small Cause regarding maintainability of the 3 SCCR No. 125 of 2025 suit, service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, relationship of landlord and tenant, applicability of the Act No.13 of 1972 which requires no interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. He further submitted that the instant revision filed by revisionists / defendants/ tenants should be dismissed.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the facts that SCC suit filed in the year 2016 by the plaintiff/opposite party/ landlord has been dismissed by the Judge Small Cause vide judgement and decree dated 12.8.2025/ 19.8.2025.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of all the seven issues framed by the Judge Small Cause will be relevant, which are as under: "1. क्या वादी एवं प्रितवादी के मध्य िकरायेदार व मकान मािलक का सम्बन्ध है ?

2. क्या सम्पित्त पर अिधिनयम संख्या 13/1972 के प्रावधान लागू होते हैं ?

3. क्या प्रितवादी पर वादपत्र में विणत गणना के अनुसार िकराये की धनरािश बकाया है ?

4. क्या नोिटस िदनांिकत 28.12.2015 के माध्यम से िकरायेदारी समाप्त हो चुकी है ?

5. क्या इस लघुवाद न्यायालय को वाद सुनने का क्षेत्रािधकार नहीं है ?

6. क्या क्षेत्रीय प्रबन्धक को यह वाद दायर करने का अिधकार नहीं था ?

7. क्या वादी िकसी अनुतोष को प्राप्त करने का अिधकारी है ?"

8. Judge Small Cause while considering the seven issues framed in the SCC suit has recorded finding of fact that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the non-applicability of the Act No.13 of 1972 in the instant matter, default in payment of rent, service of valid notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act upon the tenant regarding termination of tenancy and categorical finding of fact has also been recorded to the effect that revisionists / defendants/ tenants were given shop in tenancy rather upon piece of land. 4 SCCR No. 125 of 2025

9. In view of the categorical finding of fact recorded on all the seven issues framed before the Judge Small Cause, there is no further scope for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

10. So far as the scope of Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is concerned, the judgement of Apex Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 698, Hari Shankar vs. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury will be relevant for perusal . Paragraph No.12 to 15 of the judgement are as under: "12. The section we are dealing with, is almost the same as s. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That section has been considered by the High Courts in numerous cases and diverse interpretations have been given. The powers that it is said to confer would make a broad spectrum commencing at one end, with a view that only substantial errors of law can be corrected under it, and ending, at the other with a power of interference a little better than what an appeal gives. It is unless to discuss those cases in some of which the observations were probably made under compulsion of certain unusual facts. It is sufficient to say that we consider that the most accurate exposition of the meaning of such sections is that of Beaumont, C.J. (as he then was) in Bell & Co.Ltd. v. Waman Hemraj MANU/MH/0120/1937: AIR1938Bom223 where the learned Chief Justice, dealing with s. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, observed : "The object of s. 25 is to enable the High Court to see that there has been no miscarriage of justice, that the decision was given according to law. The section does not enumerate the cases in which the Court may interfere in revision, as does s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and I certainly do not propose to attempt an exhaustive definition of the circumstances which may justify such interference; but instances which readily occur to the mind are cases in which the Court which made the order had no jurisdiction or in which the Court has based its decision on evidence which should not have been admitted, or cases where the unsuccessful party has not been given a proper opportunity of being heard, or the burden of proof has been placed on the wrong shoulders. Wherever the court comes to the conclusion that the unsuccessful party has not had a proper trial according to law, then the Court can interfere. But, in my opinion, the Court ought not to interfere merely because it thinks that possibly the Judge who heard the case may have arrived at a conclusion which the High Court would not have arrived at." 5 SCCR No. 125 of 2025

13. This observation has our full concurrence.

14. What the learned Chief Justice has said applies to s. 35 of the Act, with which we are concerned. Judged from this point of view, the learned single Judge was not justified in interfering with a plan finding of fact and more so, because he himself proceeded on a wrong assumption.

15. The appeal thus succeeds, and is allowed with costs. The order under appeal is set aside, and that of the Additional District Judge restored. As regards eviction, the respondent has given an undertaking that he would vacate the house on or before April 25, 1962, and this has been accepted by the appellants."

11. Considering the ratio of law laid down by Apex Court regarding the jurisdiction of Court under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as well as the categorical finding of fact recorded by the Judge Small Cause, there is no scope for interference against the impugned judgement passed by Judge Small Cause in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

12. The SCC revision is dismissed accordingly. September 22, 2025 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)