Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) IN this petition the order of remand dated 2nd September, 1982 passed by the learned District Judge, Allahabad has been challenged on the ground that the appellate court committed manifest error of law in setting aside the findings of the trial court merely on the ground that the documents which were relied upon for recording the aforesaid findings, the plaintiff -landlord has no opportunity to look to the contents of the documents. The dispute relates to a portion of house No. 614 -Dariyabad Allahabad and the respondent No. 3 being the landlord filed Suit No. 461 of 1978 in the court of Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was contested by the tenant petitioner on various grounds, that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff had agreed to sell the house in dispute by registered sale deed dated 30th September 1977 and on the same date executed another agreement in which it was stipulated that the defendant will not be liable to pay rent and further by another agreement dated 8th March, 1978 the defendant had paid an amount of Rs. 6,000/ - towards the sale consideration of the house in dispute. Before the defendant could file relevant documentary evidence in support of his pleadings the suit was decreed ex parte on 23rd November, 1978. However, after the suit was restored the defendant filed original registered agreement to sell the house in dispute dated 30th Sept. 1977 and the other unregistered agreement dated 30th Sept. 1977 by which it was agreed that the defendant will not be liable to pay any rent and the third unregistered agreement dated 8th March 1978 with regard to the payment of Rs. 6000/ -. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit after relying on the aforesaid three documents. The execution of these documents were admitted by the plaintiff. It was held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant nor there were any arrears of rent.
(2.) IN revision under section 25 of the Provisional Small Causes Courts Act the learned Judge set aside the findings recorded by the trial court and remanded the case for fresh decision after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. The learned Judge held that as the three documents filed by the defendant were placed before the plaintiff only on the date when he stood in the witness box, the admission of the plaintiff with regard to his signature would not be sufficient as he was not allowed to understand and appreciate the import and effect of these documents. In the opinion of the learned Judge the plaintiff was taken by surprise and without understanding as to whether these documents were executed by him, with full knowledge of the nature and effect of the transactions in which he is said to have entered, admitted his signature. On this basis the findings of the trial court were set aside and it was directed that the case be decided afresh in the light of the observations made by the learned Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Judge misdirected in remanding the case merely on the basis that the respondent No. 3 was taken by surprise during the course of evidence when the documents were produced before him and without under standing the exact nature and import of the documents has admitted the same. The respondent No. 3 had full knowledge of these documents and this was the precise case taken by the defendant in paras 11, 12 and 13 of the written statement. The defendant has very clearly set up this precise case in his pleadings and thereafter filed these documents in support of the pleadingly. The plaintiff did not ask for any opportunity to file any evidence in rebuttal on the other hand in his statement which was recorded in part on 12th May, 1981 and thereafter completed on 13th January, 1982, admitted the signatures on these documents. The plaintiff did not give any explanation with regard to these documents nor he has taken any steps up to this date for cancellation or setting aside of these documents or for the declaration of his rights. In these circumstances the trial court did not commit any error in relying on these documents and thereafter recorded a finding of fact that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant.
(3.) IN my opinion the learned District Judge committed manifest error in setting aside the findings of fact in order to enable the plaintiff to fill in the lacuna. There appears to be no justification for remanding the case to the trial court as the learned Judge in exercise of powers under Section 25 of the Act could consider these findings on the material on record and could set them aside if they were found to be perverse, illegal or arbitrary. Learned Judge has not expressed any reason or justification to remand the case for fresh decision after affording opportunity to adduce fresh evidence. The learned Judge was not correct in holding that it was necessary to find out as to whether two subsequent were actually executed by the plaintiff and if they were executed, the circumstances which led to the execution of these documents.;