Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ petition is filed by the tenant against the judgment dated 19th February, 1996, passed by the Small Causes Court, whereby the suit filed by the landlord-respondent for eviction of petitioner due to arrears of rent demanded from the petitioner was dismissed. The demand was for arrears of rent and water-tax which had not been paid by the petitioner inspite of demand and further the tenant had sub-let the accommodation in favour of one Shri Hari Bhagwan Taneja and thus may be liable for eviction. This suit was filed by the landlord for the eviction, which was contested by the tenant-petitioner. After affording opportunity to the parties the trial court found that accommodation In fact was sub-let by the petitioner-tenant in favour of Shri Hari Bhagwan Taneja, in full knowledge of the landlord. The suit for eviction was, therefore, dismissed with costs. The defence taken by the tenant was that the landlord was in knowledge of the fact that Shri Hari Bhagwan Taneja was carrying business of manufacturing Wax Candle along with Agarbatti and, therefore, this cannot be said to be sub-letting as the same was within the knowledge of the landlord. The trial court discussed the case of the tenant. rejected the suit of landlord and held that since it was in the knowledge of the landlord that Shri Hari Bhagwan Taneja was carrying business with the tenant the same cannot be said to be sub-let and dismissed the suit.
(2.) Aggrieved thereby, the landlord filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The revisional court on the basis of findings recorded by the trial court found that findings recorded by the trial court deserve to be reversed and recorded its own findings that the suit filed by the landlord deserves to be decreed as trial court committed error in dismissing the same. The revisional court, therefore, decreed the suit after recording its own findings.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in Sardar Gurdeep Singh v. VIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and another, 1997 (2) AWC 756 : 1997 (1) ARC 338. The law with regard to the interference under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is well-settled : "It is well-settled in law that the Revisional Court in exercise of the power under Section 25 of the Act has got no jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and reverse the findings of the trial court on the questions of fact and substitute its own finding in case the revisional court is not satisfied with the findings of fact recorded by the trial court, It could at the best remand the case to the trial court. It is also well-settled in law that if the findings recorded by the trial court are not based on any evidence or were in respect of the jurisdictiorral fact, or were vitiated by error of law, the revisional court is entitled to interfere with the said findings and could record its own findings.";