High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. Present SCC Revision has been filed challenging the judgment and decree 08.02.2021 passed against the revisionist.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent landlord filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction and damages on 26.03.2010 against the revisionist seeking eviction of House No.14/1109, Indira Nagar, Lucknow which was given on rent in April, 2006 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. It was claimed that the tenant paid the rent up to January, 2007 and stopped paying from February, 2007 up to January, 2010 which led to issuance of a notice terminating the tenancy. It is claimed that the notice was replied on 25.02.2010 and thereafter, SCC Suit No.26 of 2010 was filed. In defence to the said suit, the revisionist tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant on the ground that an agreement was executed whereby an advance of Rs.50,000/- was given to the landlord with stipulation that in case the same is not paid, the landlord will execute the sale deed. On this defense, the SCC Suit was dismissed on 29.10.2013. The landlord preferred SCC Revision No.1 of 2014 before this Court wherein the revision was allowed and the matter was remanded for consideration afresh. After remand, the SCC Suit was decreed and a decree order was passed in favour of the landlord and for payment of rent/damages from 2 February, 2007 till the actual possession. Aggrieved against the same, present revision has been filed.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revision is bound to be allowed. He argues that it is well settled that the scope of SCC Revision is far wider than the scope of Revision under Section 115 CPC. It is further argued that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside as there was a dispute and in terms of Section 23, the Court is empowered to refer the parties for determination of their title. It is further argued that the report of handwriting expert referred to in the order of remand is merely an opinion and does not prove the validity of the document. It was stated that the landlord had borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- and in lieu thereof, has handed over the possession on 10.03.2006 and an unregistered agreement to sale was also executed on 20.06.2007 and a suit for permanent injunction was also filed by the tenant after which the suit in question being SCC Suit No.26 of 2010 was filed.

4. In the defense, it is argued that a specific averment was made that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. It was also stated that the defendant had invested considerably in the house in question. It is further argued that the plaintiff’s claim was liable to be rejected on the ground that the plaintiff had admitted construction in the plaint. The tenancy agreement relied upon was not registered. The factum of agreement was denied by the revisionist and in the SCC Suit, title cannot be considered.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, argues that admittedly as per the findings recorded, not a single penny was paid since February, 2007. It is argued that the unregistered agreement has no effect and does not confer any right and in fact, the revisionist never filed any suit for specific performance or for any declaration. It is further argued that during the course of the proceedings revisionist could not prove his allegations of advance payment and the findings 3 of this Court while remanding the case were never challenged. It is further argued that despite the fact there was no stay, the revisionist resorted to all sorts of practices to stop the execution and had even filed applications under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 & 101 of CPC as well as under Section 47 of CPC which were quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 28.04.2025 passed in Matters Under Article 227 No.1281 of 2024 with direction to the Executing Court to execute the decree at the earliest.

6. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the revisionist had approached the Supreme Court vide SLP No.14199 of 2025 which was dismissed on 16.05.2025 and thereafter, a Review Application being Civil Misc. Review Application No.79 of 2025 was preferred which too was dismissed on 04.07.2025. It is argued that the title dispute as sought to be raised is non-existent as the revisionist has never instituted any proceedings to claim title as is being proposed to be argued.

7. The SCC Court had considered all these facts and also noticed that the constructions were raised by the revisionist without any permission. While deciding Issue Nos.1, 2 & 3, categorical findings after appreciation of evidence were recorded that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed in between the parties. The Court also noticed that even the witnesses to the agreement were not adduced for evidence by the revisionist. Based upon the said, a finding was returned that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed. The agreement relied upon and allegedly executed on 28.09.2007 was an unregistered document and was not even proved through any witness and the same was found to be forged and fabricated. The issues with regard to service of notice were also proved in favour of the landlord and against the revisionist. Finding with regard to default in payment of rent was also recorded and thus, the suit was decreed. 4

8. Considering the arguments raised and recorded above, it is a clear case of misadventure and effort by the revisionist to hoodwink the process of law. The foundation set up by the tenant with regard to an agreement was neither proved through any evidence nor was any proceeding instituted for claiming any title or benefit out of the said agreement. In the absence of the same, his claim that there was a title dispute, was rightly rejected and deserves to be rejected by this Court also.

9. Considering the fact that findings of fact have been recorded, no interference is called for.

10. Present revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

11. Directions as given by this Court in Matters Under Article 227 No.1281 of 2024 dated 28.04.2025 shall be complied with forthwith. Order Date :- 24.07.2025 nishant [Pankaj Bhatia, J.] NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revision is bound to be allowed. He argues that it is well settled that the scope of SCC Revision is far wider than the scope of Revision under Section 115 CPC. It is further argued that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside as there was a dispute and in terms of Section 23, the Court is empowered to refer the parties for determination of their title. It is further argued that the report of handwriting expert referred to in the order of remand is merely an opinion and does not prove the validity of the document. It was stated that the landlord had borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- and in lieu thereof, has handed over the possession on 10.03.2006 and an unregistered agreement to sale was also executed on 20.06.2007 and a suit for permanent injunction was also filed by the tenant after which the suit in question being SCC Suit No.26 of 2010 was filed.

4. In the defense, it is argued that a specific averment was made that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. It was also stated that the defendant had invested considerably in the house in question. It is further argued that the plaintiff’s claim was liable to be rejected on the ground that the plaintiff had admitted construction in the plaint. The tenancy agreement relied upon was not registered. The factum of agreement was denied by the revisionist and in the SCC Suit, title cannot be considered.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, argues that admittedly as per the findings recorded, not a single penny was paid since February, 2007. It is argued that the unregistered agreement has no effect and does not confer any right and in fact, the revisionist never filed any suit for specific performance or for any declaration. It is further argued that during the course of the proceedings revisionist could not prove his allegations of advance payment and the findings 3 of this Court while remanding the case were never challenged. It is further argued that despite the fact there was no stay, the revisionist resorted to all sorts of practices to stop the execution and had even filed applications under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 & 101 of CPC as well as under Section 47 of CPC which were quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 28.04.2025 passed in Matters Under Article 227 No.1281 of 2024 with direction to the Executing Court to execute the decree at the earliest.

6. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the revisionist had approached the Supreme Court vide SLP No.14199 of 2025 which was dismissed on 16.05.2025 and thereafter, a Review Application being Civil Misc. Review Application No.79 of 2025 was preferred which too was dismissed on 04.07.2025. It is argued that the title dispute as sought to be raised is non-existent as the revisionist has never instituted any proceedings to claim title as is being proposed to be argued.

7. The SCC Court had considered all these facts and also noticed that the constructions were raised by the revisionist without any permission. While deciding Issue Nos.1, 2 & 3, categorical findings after appreciation of evidence were recorded that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed in between the parties. The Court also noticed that even the witnesses to the agreement were not adduced for evidence by the revisionist. Based upon the said, a finding was returned that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed. The agreement relied upon and allegedly executed on 28.09.2007 was an unregistered document and was not even proved through any witness and the same was found to be forged and fabricated. The issues with regard to service of notice were also proved in favour of the landlord and against the revisionist. Finding with regard to default in payment of rent was also recorded and thus, the suit was decreed. 4

8. Considering the arguments raised and recorded above, it is a clear case of misadventure and effort by the revisionist to hoodwink the process of law. The foundation set up by the tenant with regard to an agreement was neither proved through any evidence nor was any proceeding instituted for claiming any title or benefit out of the said agreement. In the absence of the same, his claim that there was a title dispute, was rightly rejected and deserves to be rejected by this Court also.

9. Considering the fact that findings of fact have been recorded, no interference is called for.

10. Present revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

11. Directions as given by this Court in Matters Under Article 227 No.1281 of 2024 dated 28.04.2025 shall be complied with forthwith. Order Date :- 24.07.2025 nishant [Pankaj Bhatia, J.] NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench