V.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Miss Rama Goel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the tenant. The landlord filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction. The trial court dismissed the suit after recording a finding that since the petitioner had deposited the rent under section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 he is not liable for eviction. So far as the question of material alteration is concerned, it recorded a finding that the landlord could not prove material alteration. The landlord filed revision which had been allowed by the revisional court on 27.4.2002. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.
(2.) THE revisional Court has recorded a finding with regard to material alteration to the effect that the tenant was examined as DW. 1. He in his statement has admitted that the shop had shutter of 8 ft. which means that the passage to the shop was a 8 feet wide. He has further admitted that now the passage to the shop is only 28" wide. This statement DW -1 was not considered by the trial courts. It is well settled that if material piece of evidence had not been considered by the Judge Small Cause Court, the revisional court would be justified in interfering with the order of the trial court. For the aforesaid reasons I do not fine any illegality in the order passed by the revisional court remanding the matter to be decided by the trial court afresh. Subject to the observation made above the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However the trial court shall apply its own independent mind to the facts of the case and decide the case without being influenced by the judgment of the revisional court.;