- (1.) SUDHIR Naruin, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 22-7-1982 passed by respondent No. 1. whereby the decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court was set aside and the case was remanded to it lo decide the mat ter afresh. The petitioner had filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent ejectment and damages on the allegation that the defen dant- respondent was tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 115. He did not pay rent from the month of August 1980 inspite of the demands made by her. She gave notice to the defendants terminating his tenancy and demanding arrears of rent. The tenant did not comply with the notice. It was further stated that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the disputed accommoda tion. The suit was contested by the defen dant and it was stated that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable.
(2.) THE Judge, Small Causes Court recorded finding that the disputed con struction was made in the year 1975 and the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. THE tenancy was validly terminated and the suit was decreed. THE defendant filed revision and Respondent No. 1 allowed the revision and remanded the case to the trial Court on two grounds. Firstly, that according to the version of the defendant he had paid Rs. 545 to the plaintiff al the lime of agree ment of the tenancy but this aspect has not been considered properly. THE second ground was that there was an agreement of tenancy whereby the parties entered into a contract that the disputed accommoda tion can be got vacated only when the landlord requires for it. As regards the question as lo whether the defendant had paid Rs. 545, it was a question of fact. It has not been shown that there was any legal infirmity in the finding recorded by the trial Court. It was open to the Judge, Small Causes Court to believe or disbelieve the statement of the defendant. The revisional Court could remand the case to the trial Court only when the Court had misread the evidence or had ignored any material evidence as held in Laxmi Kishore and others v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1979 ACJ 473. As regards the question of validity of the notice, it was not the case of any of the parties that the tenancy was a permanent tenancy and no permanent tenancy could come into exist ence unless it was registered agreement. In absence of any registered agreement the tenancy could have been terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Respondent No. 1 has not set aside the finding recorded by the Judge, Small Causes Court that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 197. 2 were not applicable. In view of the above, the writ peti tion is allowed, the order dated 22-7-1982 passed by Respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed and Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the revision afresh keeping in view the observations made above and in accordance with law. The panics shall hear their own costs. Petition allowed. .;