- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. The petitioner filed a suit against the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent which was SCC Suit No. 207 of 1980. The suit was decreed on 13-9-1994 by judgment, Annexure-1 to the petition by J. S. C. C. , Jhansi. Against that judgment the respondents preferred S. C. C. Revision No. 179 of 1994. The revision has been allowed and the suit has been dismissed by IInd Additional District Judge, Jhansi on 29-1-1998 by judgment, Annexure-3 to the petition. Therefore, the landlord petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) I have heard Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. N. Bhargava, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 6. In the suit for eviction, it was pleaded that the disputed house was purchased by the petitioner by sale-deed dated 20-6- 1979 from the previous owners Ratan Lal and Chunni Lal; that the respondents were tenants at the rate of Rs. 10 per month; that the rent was demanded on 30-6-1979 but it was not paid; that, therefore, the tenancy was terminated by notice dated 9-5-1980 and arrears of rent was also demanded; that the rent was not paid and, therefore, the respondents committed default in payment of rent and, therefore, are liable for ejectment. The trial Court considered the evidence in detail and held that the petitioner is the landlady. He has also held that the default has been committed in payment of rent.
(3.) THE Revisional Court has reversed the findings. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Revisional Court has exceeded the well defined limits of the powers of revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act; that he himself scrutinised the evidence and arrived at a conclusion; that he has not mentioned any reason for disagreeing with the findings of the trial Court nor has mentioned any reason that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court are not correct on the basis ofthe evidence adduced by the parties. It is, therefore, contended that the judgment of the Revisional Court is beyond its jurisdiction and scope of the revision is fit to be quashed. I have gone through the judgment and an definitely of the opinion that the approach of the Revisional Court in this matter was absolutely erratic and he has acted as trial Court and recorded conclusions after scrutinising the evidence without considering the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court.;