SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Vikas Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of repeated calls, nobody appears on behalf of the respondents, as such this Court has no option except to hear the matter and decide this writ petition on merit.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.1.2006 passed by the revisional court in Revision No.167 of 2005, Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The petitioner being the landlord filed the present writ petition against the respondent-tenant for arrears of rent and ejectment. It was numbered as Suit No. 45 of 1997 and the same was dismissed by order dated 14.2.2001. The revision filed by the petitioner was allowed holding therein that there is relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant and the respondent-tenant is in arrears of rent and has not paid the rent. The Judge Small Causes Court after considering the claim of the parties was pleased to decree the suit after recording a finding that in view of the receipts issued between the parties, there is a relationship between the parties of landlord and tenant and admittedly the respondent-tenant is a defaulter and has not paid the rent. Therefore, she is liable for ejectment. The respondent-tenant filed a revision against the said judgment dated 5.9.2005 which has been allowed without considering the case that a finding in the earlier revision has already been arrived at regarding having a relationship of landlord and tenant and that has become final and it cannot be disturbed by the authority below unless and until that is challenged. Sri Vikas Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Judge Small Causes Court while considering the claim has recorded a finding that Mohd. Shamim executed a receipt of rent and on that basis the rent was being paid by the respondent. The receipts were on record, therefore, it cannot be presumed by any means that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. Further a submission has been made by Mr. Vikas Tripathi that in the earlier revision a finding has been recorded that there exists a relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant on the basis of the relevant receipts issued by the parties before the court and this finding has never been challenged by respondent-tenant. As such, the revisional court has got no jurisdiction to hold that in spite of these documents of execution of rent receipts, there is any doubt regarding the fact of the relationship of the landlord and the tenant. The revisional court has got no jurisdiction to remand the matter only on this ground alone. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Y.B. Patil and others Vs. Y.L. Patil reported in AIR 1977 SC 392 and reliance has been placed upon para 4 of the of the said judgment which is quoted below: "4. In appeal before us Mr. Gupta on behalf of the appellants has contended that the High Court was in error in not interfering with the order of the Tribunal whereby the revision petition filed by the appellants had been dismissed. It is urged that the Tribunal in affirming the finding of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner regarding the question of the appellants being strangers qua the land in dispute took a very restricted view of Section 79 of the Act dealing with revision. This contention, in our opinion, is not well founded. The High Court at the time of the decision of the earlier writ petition on December 18, 1964 recorded a finding and gave directions to the Tribunal not to reopen the questions of fact in revision. The Tribunal while passing the order dated September 12, 1967 complied with those directions of the High Court. The appellants are bound by the judgment of the High Court and it is not open to them to go behind that judgment in this appeal. No appeal was filed against that judgment and it has become final. It is well settled that principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, they also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Once an order made in the course of the proceedings becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding. In view of the High Court judgment dated December 18, 1964, the Tribunal while passing the order dated September 1967, the order dated September 12,1967, disposing of the revision petition filed by the appellant, could not reopen the questions of fact which had been decided by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. The High Court, in our opinion, was right in holding in the judgment under appeal that concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal cannot be set aside in the writ petition. The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs."
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once a finding has been recorded, it is not open to reopen the fact in revision. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment passed by the revisional court is liable to be set aside.;