R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) PETITIONER in Writ Petition No. 14772 of 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) is the owner of a house of which the Petitioner in other Writ Petition No. 15041 of 1982 (here -in -after referred to as the tenant) is the tenant. The landlady filed a suit for rent and ejectment of the tenant from the disputed house. This suit was decreed on 21 -12 -1978 by learned Civil Judge, Ballia, who was exercising powers of the Judge, Small Causes Court. The tenant thereafter filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, which has been allowed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ballia on 20 -8 -1982 and the case was remanded back to the trial court for fresh decision. Against the aforesaid judgment of the revisional court both the landlady and the tenant have filed the aforesaid writ petitions.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The revisional court has held that the landlady is not the landlord within the meaning of Section 3(J) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (here in -after referred to as the Act) Although the finding of the trial court regarding the date of construction of the house was accepted by the revisional court but the case was remanded on the ground that the tenant, in view of the pleadings of the landlady in the plaint to the effect that the house in question was constructed in 1971, could not take advantage of Section 39 of the Act by depositing the rent etc.
(3.) THE 'landlord' has been defined in Section 3(J) of the Act as follows: "Landlord," in relation to building, means a person to whom its rent is or if the building were sold, would be, payable and includes, except in Clause (g), the agent or attorney, or such person. Trial court on the basis of the tenant's own evidence, namely, DW 1, DW 2 and the rent receipts as well as the allegations made in the plaint, sale deed and the sanction plan, recorded a finding of fact that the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 14772 of 1982 is the landlady and is entitled to maintain the suit. The case set up by the tenant that the landlady's husband is the landlord was disbelieved. Revisional court made its own appraisal of evidence on record and recorded a finding of fact to the effect that the landlady is not the landlord within the meaning of the Act. It is well settled that a court exercising the power of revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act can only interfere on the question of law and it is not open to it to reappraise the evidence and record a different? finding of fact. The revisional court as such, was not justified to set aside the decision of the trial court on this question by recording a different finding after reappraisal of the evidence.;