JUDGMENT Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision filed by the tenant under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 has questioned the correctness of impugned judgment rendered in S.C.C. Suit No. 68 of 2011 on 20.4.2016 decreeing suit for eviction against the revisionist and in favour of the respondent coupled with an order for payment of a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards arrears of rent within a period of one month. As a consequence of default, damages have further been ordered. 3. Default in the payment of rent gave rise to a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which was sent to the revisionist on 15.6.2011 and has allegedly been served on 21.6.2011 and non-compliance whereof resulted in filing of suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages before the Court of Judge Small Causes which ultimately was decreed in favour of respondent by the Court below. The revisionist filed a written statement before the Court below wherein except denial of the plaint nothing more was stated. Each paragraph of written statement offers an evasive denial but the additional pleas set up a case of denial of tenancy altogether. 4. The defence raised under the additional pleas is three fold; firstly, the revisionist has denied landlord and tenant relationship. Secondly, the revisionist also denied payment of rent in absence of any landlord-tenant relationship being ever extant and; thirdly, the revisionist has denied ownership of the respondent landlord. In the light of pleadings of the parties three issues were framed by the Judge Small Causes Court for determination of the lis between the parties. The first issue was framed as to whether the revisionist was a tenant of the respondent at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month. The second issue framed by the Court below was as regards ownership of the respondent in respect of property in question and the third issue was as to what relief the respondent was entitled to. 5. Insofar as issue No. 1 is concerned, documentary as well as oral evidence was led by the respondent/landlord before the Court below. The revisionist/tenant also led oral evidence of his own and of one Sri Mata Prasad to prove his case. 5. Insofar as issue No. 1 is concerned, documentary as well as oral evidence was led by the respondent/landlord before the Court below. The revisionist/tenant also led oral evidence of his own and of one Sri Mata Prasad to prove his case. In order to prove landlord tenant relationship, the oral testimony of revisionist in an injunction suit i.e. regular suit No. 415 of 2001 which suit was filed by the respondent against Nagar Mahapalika for permanent injunction wherein the revisionist had made a statement as a witness on behalf of respondent was filed and relied upon. The statement essentially disclosed the possession of the landlord over the property in dispute since last fifty years of which a portion had come to be let out to the revisionist in the year 1999. The testimony was believed by the Civil Court as credible for grant of ex parte decree in favour of the landlord which has remained unchallenged. Moreover, the own affidavit filed by the revisionist before the electricity authorities for obtaining electric connection was exhibited as evidence wherein the revisionist has accepted his status as tenant of the respondent-landlord. These evidences were not denied by the revisionist before the trial Court. 6. The Court below while adjudicating upon the issue of landlord-tenant relationship has heavily relied upon these two evidences to record a finding against the revisionist which does not suffer from any error of law in absence of anything being proved to the contrary on the basis of evidence led by the revisionist. Thus looking to the evidence on record led before the Court below, the findings recorded in the impugned judgment cannot be said to be baseless and suffering from any perversity. 7. Tenancy in the present case was created orally, therefore, payment of rent as an ingredient of landlord-tenant relationship was to be proved by the landlord once the relationship was denied. This Court having carefully examined the findings recorded in the impugned judgment would find that cross-examination of landlord by the tenant for establishing payment of rent is the decisive evidence. The revisionist while cross-examining the landlord has put certain questions answers whereof show that the revisionist has paid Rs. 2500/- per month and monthly rent upto January, 2010 was paid to the landlord. The revisionist while cross-examining the landlord has put certain questions answers whereof show that the revisionist has paid Rs. 2500/- per month and monthly rent upto January, 2010 was paid to the landlord. For instance, the reply that “tenant paid me rent upto January, 2010” is an answer to a question which essentially shows as if the landlord tenant relationship did exist. Likewise the reply that “I did not use to issue any rent receipts nor any such receipt has been filed” is a reply logically to the question as to whether any rent receipts were ever issued or whether the same have been filed. Further the answer of the landlord that “ I was paid rent at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month” is the reply to a nature of question which calls for an answer as to the rate of rent. The findings of fact, it is well-settled cannot be overturned by re-appreciating evidence in exercise of power under revisional jurisdiction. Reference may be made to paragraph-43 of the judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh, 2014 (9) SCC 78 and the relevant part of same is extracted below : “45. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a Court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.” 8. The revisionist having put the questions of above description cannot turn around and deny relationship particularly when there is no credible evidence to the contrary. The Courts of law are bound to record a finding on the basis of evidence and unless that foundation is shaken, it can be said that a finding is perverse. Thus, finding recorded in the present case that the revisionist had paid rent upto January, 2010 as admitted by the landlord and default as alleged by him having occurred thereafter till the issuance of notice resulting into termination of tenancy cannot be faulted with particularly when the statutory defence available to the tenant as on the first date of hearing was not secured. Lastly the revisionist argued that the tin-shed let out to him was not a building, therefore, the impugned judgment calls for interference. From the material available on record, it cannot be inferred either from the pleadings or evidence that the revisionist had put up any such case. This Court having regard to the findings recorded by the Court below is not impressed by the submission made and the same deserves to be rejected. Insofar as the question of ownership is concerned, this question does not arise in a nature of suit between the landlord and tenant, hence the Court would decline to go into such a question. The revision fails and the same is hereby rejected.