Alok Kumar Verma, J
1. The proposed Revision has been filed under Section 25 of The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the order dated 23.12.2022, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court/ District Judge, Pithoragarh in Small Causes Court Execution No. 1 of 2022, “Shyam Sunder Agrawal Vs. Pradeep Joshi”, whereby, the learned Executing Court rejecting the objection of the revisionist – judgment - debtor directed to issue warrant for possession.
2. Brief facts, which led to filing of the present revision are as under:-
The respondent - decree holder - plaintiff landlord had sent a quit notice dated 19.12.2017, to the revisionist – defendant. He terminated the revisionist’s tenancy and demanded arrears of rent. In spite of receipt of quit notice, the revisionist neither vacated the shop-in-question nor paid the outstanding rent. The respondent - plaintiff landlord had filed a summary suit (S.C.C. Case No. 1 of 2018). In the said Suit, the defence of the revisionist – defendant was struck-off under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The case of the revisionist - defendant was that he was paying the rent to the plaintiff from time to time, but the receipts were not given to him by the plaintiff.
3. Learned Trial Court decided the Suit passing an eviction decree against the revisionist - defendant in relation to the shop-in-question and directed to pay the outstanding rent i.e. a sum of `.78,334/- (Rupees seventy eight thousand three hundred thirty four) and mesne profit @ 6000=00 per month along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the possession of the shop-in-question is handed-over to the respondent-plaintiff.
4. The respondent filed an Execution Case (Execution Case No. 1 of 2022). In the Execution proceeding, the revisionist - judgment - debtor filed an objection saying that after the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2021, passed by the learned Trial Court, he had paid the rent till the month of November, 2022 to the decree holder, but the respondent – decree holder did not give him any receipt. By the impugned order dated 23.12.2022, learned Executing Court has directed to issue warrant for possession.
5. It is well established proposition that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The object of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 is to enable the Court to see that there has been no miscarriage of justice and that the order was passed according to law. The present case is not a case wherein the learned Executing Court has considered any irrelevant factor or has ignored any relevant factor.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist could not show that the Executing Court did not apply its judicial mind while passing the impugned order. Therefore, there is no good ground to entertain the present revision.
7. The Revision is liable to be rejected; the same is rejected at the admission stage.
