Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order passed by the Revisional Court under Section 25 of Small Cause Courts Act whereby the revisional Court allowed the revision and set aside the decree passed by the trial Court on the ground that the trial Court has disposed of the suit without looking into the evidence on the record whereas from the evidence on the record it is apparent that the defendant is in default of more than three years' rent and his tenancy has already been terminated by a valid notice. The revisional Court, therefore, allowed the revision and decreed the suit after reassessing the evidence on the record for eviction of the tenant and recovery of arrears of rent for three years and damages of Rs. 252/-.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted before this Court that in view of law laid down by this Court in the case of Laxmi Kishore and Anr. v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1981 ARC 545 (DB), and also other cases even assuming that revisional Court's finding regarding assessment of evidence is permissible under Section 25 it ought to have remanded back the matter to the trial Court instead of decreeing the suit itself.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the landlord has submitted that Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1981 ARC 545, Laxmi Kishore and Anr. v. Har Prasad Shukla, has been considered by another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case reported in 1988 (1) ARC 521, Karim Ullah v. III Additional District Judge, Allahabad and Ors., wherein the Single Judge, after considering the case of Laxmi Kishore (supra), has held as under: "8. The basic case on which all these cases are based is the decision of this Court in Laxmi Kishore and Anr. v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1981 ARC 545. It has been held in this case as under: "The Court deciding a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has to satisfy itself that the Trial Court's decree or order is accordingly to law. Of course, the Revisional Court should keep in mind the Court's dictum in Naicker's case (supra) that a wrong decision on fact is also a decision according to law. If it finds that there is no evidence to sustain a finding on a particular issue of fact, it can ignore that finding. Same will be the case where the finding is based only on inadmissible evidence. In such cases, the Court will be justified in deciding the question of fact itself, because the evidence is all one way. No assessment is needed. The Court can also decide the revision if only a question of law or some preliminary point of law, viz. Validity of notice, is sufficient for its decision. But, if it finds that a particular finding of fact is vitiated by an order of law, it has power to pass such order as the justice of the case requires, but it has no jurisdiction to reassess or reappraise the evidence in border to determine an issue of fact for itself. If it cannot dispose of the case adequately without a finding on a particular issue of fact, it should send the case back after lying down proper guidelines. It cannot enter into the evidence, assess it and determine an issue of fact.";