Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the landlord for quashing the judgment and order dated 22.8.1995 passed in S.C.C. Revision No. 171 of 1994, Chando Kanaujia v. Sumaria Devi and another whereby the revision of the respondent -tenant was allowed, the decree of the Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut dated 11.05.1994 decreeing the suit of the petitioner was set aside and the suit of the petitioner was dismissed. The dispute relates to house No. 587, Gandhi Mohalla Kaseru Kheda, Meerut City, Meerut. The petitioners are the owners of the premises in dispute and respondent No. 2 was tenant of one room in the said house at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/ -. The respondent No. 2 stopped paying the rent w.e.f. 1.10.1986. The petitioner after giving the notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the respondent No. 2 which was registered as J.S.C.C. Suit No. 377 of 1985. After affording opportunity of evidence to the parties, the Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut vide judgment dated 11.5.1994 held that the rate of rent was of Rs. 25/ - per month and that the tenant had failed to pay the rent w.e.f. 1.10.1984 and accordingly decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the respondent No. 2. In so far as the deposit made by the respondent No. 2 seeking benefit of protection of eviction provided under section 20(4) of the Act is concerned, the Trial Court held that the deposit was made at the rate of Rs. 15/ - whereas actually it has been held that the rate of rent at Rs. 25/ - per month. In view of the said finding the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was decreed. Aggrieved by the judgment of Trial Court the tenant -respondent No. 2 filed revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887, which was, registered as S.C.C. Revision No. 171 of 1994, Chando Kanaujia v. Sumaria Devi and another. The Revisional Court while exercising power under section 25 of 1987 Act interfered with the finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court after reappraisal of the evidence held that rate of rent was Rs. 15/ - per month and not Rs. 25/ - as determined by the Trial Court On the basis of rate of rent being Rs. 15/ - per month the Revisional Court further held that the deposit made under section 20(4) of the Act was sufficient and accordingly allowed the revision and dismissed the suit for eviction of respondent No. 2 tenant giving him benefit of section 20(4) of the Act. It is against this judgment that this present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Sri Siddharth learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Revisional Court while passing the impugned judgment committed jurisdictional error in as much as it exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court upon appraisal of the evidence.
(3.) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Revisional Court could be at best remand the matter rather than examining the evidence and recording its own finding. He has further relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Laxmi Kishore v. Har Prasad Shukla : 1981 ARC page 545. The law laid down in the said Division Bench still holds the field and is being followed even today with approval. The judgment of the Revisional Court impugned in the present writ petition therefore cannot be sustained.;