[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Petitioners vs Shri Ram Kumar Gupta on 12 February, 2026
Judgment Reserved on: 16.12.2025
Judgment Delivered on: 12.02.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 463 of 2012
Shri Yograj (since deceased, through LRs) and Another
......Petitioners
Versus
Shri Ram Kumar Gupta .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan alongwith Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, learned counsel
for the Petitioners.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the Respondent.
Hon'ble 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,
1
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 463 of 2012---------Shri Yograj (since deceased, through LRs) and Anothervs Shri
Ram Kumar Gupta
Ashish Naithani J.
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(SCC Suit No. 41 of 1986) was withdrawn with liberty due to a technical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. 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
2
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 463 of 2012---------Shri Yograj (since deceased, through LRs) and Anothervs Shri
Ram Kumar Gupta
Ashish Naithani J.
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. 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
3
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 463 of 2012---------Shri Yograj (since deceased, through LRs) and Anothervs Shri
Ram Kumar Gupta
Ashish Naithani J.
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. These findings were
based on documentary evidence, including the registered sale deed dated
4
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 463 of 2012---------Shri Yograj (since deceased, through LRs) and Anothervs Shri
Ram Kumar Gupta
Ashish Naithani J.
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.
5
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 463 of 2012---------Shri Yograj (since deceased, through LRs) and Anothervs Shri
Ram Kumar Gupta
Ashish Naithani J.
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.
Ashish Naithani, J.
Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OFSHIKSHA UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF SB UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6 b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf63 BINJOLA 9b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C527 96A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F1 8FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.02.12 15:59:05 +05'30' 6 Writ Petition (M/S) No. 463 of 2012---------Shri Yograj (since deceased, through LRs) and Anothervs Shri Ram Kumar Gupta Ashish Naithani J.